1 2025:CGHC:52795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6760 of 2025 Mayur Mahendrabhai Raval S/o Lt. Mr. Mahendrabhai Raval Aged About 48 Years R/o Flat No. 605, Sky Marina, Plot No. 171, Sukhadiya Circle, Udaipur- 313001 (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI), AC-III, New Delhi, Through The Investigating Officer ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sidharth Dave, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Mr. Harshit Sharma, Ms. Alekhya Shastry & Ms. Tanisha Kaushal, Advocates. For Non-Applicant : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.RC2182025A0014 registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) AC-III, New Delhi GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.10.30 18:32:13 +0530 2 for the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sections 7,8,9,10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that certain public officials associated with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, and the National Medical Commission (NMC), New Delhi, in criminal conspiracy with intermediaries and representatives of various private medical colleges across the country, indulged in acts of corruption, abuse of official position, and willful misconduct. 3. It is alleged that the said officials facilitated the unlawful dissemination of confidential files and sensitive information relating to the regulatory status and internal processing of medical colleges within the Ministry and the NMC. They further manipulated the statutory inspection process by pre-emptively disclosing the inspection schedules and the identities of designated assessors to the concerned medical institutions, thereby enabling such institutions to obtain favourable reports. 4. The centric allegation against the present applicant is that, while serving as Registrar, Geetanjali University, Udaipur, he, in conspiracy with co-accused Mr. Randeep Nair, Project Head, M/s. Technify Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and certain unidentified officials of the NMC, was actively involved in corrupt practices involving the solicitation and receipt of illegal gratification from various medical 3 colleges in exchange for undue favours, including the advance sharing of confidential and sensitive information regarding scheduled NMC inspections and related regulatory proceedings. 5. Mr. Sidharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Mr. Harshit Sharma, Ms. Alekhya Shastry, and Ms. Tanisha Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that his arrest was wholly unwarranted and carried out in a hasty manner without adherence to the statutory safeguards prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned counsel would submit that there was no material before the Investigating Agency justifying the arrest of the applicant, and that the entire case against him rests upon conjecture and suspicion, with no direct evidence linking him to the alleged offences. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Dave that the applicant, while serving as Registrar of Geetanjali University, Udaipur, was engaged solely in academic and administrative functions having no nexus whatsoever with the statutory or regulatory affairs of the National Medical Commission (NMC) or the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The applicant neither possessed nor had access to any confidential or sensitive information pertaining to NMC’s inspections or internal processes. During the search and seizure operations conducted at the applicant’s hotel accommodation in 4 Jaipur and at his office-cum-residence in Udaipur, no incriminating documents, cash, or material indicating his involvement in the alleged conspiracy were recovered. It is also contended that the offences invoked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 primarily concern public servants, whereas the applicant, being a Registrar of a private university, is not a public servant within the meaning of the said Act. 7. Mr. Dave urged that the applicant has been selectively targeted while the principal accused namely, certain public officials of the Ministry and the NMC, alleged to have misused their official position for pecuniary gain, have not been arrested, thereby rendering the action of the Investigating Agency discriminatory and arbitrary. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed, and the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 02.07.2025. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail, as the further detention of the applicant would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an infringement of his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI, submitted that credible source information revealed a large-scale conspiracy involving certain public officials of the Ministry of Health and 5 Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, and the National Medical Commission (NMC), in collusion with intermediaries and representatives of private medical colleges across the country. These individuals, by abusing their official positions, engaged in acts of corruption, bribery, and manipulation of statutory regulatory processes. It is alleged that the officials and their associates facilitated unauthorized access to confidential files and sensitive information related to inspection, renewal, and issuance of Letters of Approval (LoA) for various medical colleges. They unlawfully disclosed inspection schedules and details of designated assessors to the concerned institutions, thereby enabling them to influence inspections in advance. 9. Mr. Kumar further submitted that such disclosures allowed medical colleges to fabricate compliance by arranging proxy or “ghost” faculty, enrolling fictitious patients, and tampering with biometric attendance systems to project false records. In several cases, assessors were bribed to submit favourable inspection reports. These acts, carried out in exchange for monetary and other illegal considerations, severely undermined the integrity of the medical regulatory system and compromised public health standards. The CBI has filed a charge-sheet against 12 accused persons, including the applicant, out of which 8 have been arrested. The investigation, supported by intercepted communications, digital evidence, and recovered documents, clearly establishes that the applicant acted in conspiracy with co- 6 accused persons to solicit and negotiate bribes ranging from ₹25 to ₹50 lakhs for providing advance inspection details and other undue favours to medical institutions. 10. It is submitted by Mr. Kumar that the offences are of grave nature, involving deep-rooted corruption in the medical education regulatory system, which directly affects the credibility of public institutions and the healthcare sector at large. The applicant’s active role, his nexus with other co-accused, and the risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with digital evidence justify his continued judicial custody. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing further investigation, the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 12. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed against twelve accused persons including the applicant, this Court finds that the investigation, insofar as it concerns the applicant, appears to be substantially complete. The record further reveals that there are in total thirty-six accused persons in the case, out of whom twelve have been charge-sheeted and eight were arrested. Although further investigation is stated to be continuing against certain other accused persons, the same does 7 not necessitate the applicant’s further custodial interrogation. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 02.07.2025 and that the trial, involving as many as 136 prosecution witnesses and voluminous documentary as well as digital evidence, is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The husband of the applicant is also in judicial custody in connection with the same offence. 13. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the continued detention of the applicant would serve no useful purpose and would amount to pre-trial incarceration, contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial and not to inflict punishment prior to conviction. In the absence of any material suggesting that the applicant, if released on bail, would either abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, and having regard to the overall facts including her family circumstances, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, is inclined to release the applicant on bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure her presence during the trial and to safeguard the fair progress of the proceedings. 14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Mayur Mahendrabhai Raval, involved in Crime No.RC2182025A0014 registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) AC-III, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 8 2023, and sections 7,8,9,10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) 9 framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 15. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Gouri/Anu