1 2025:CGHC:52792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6620 of 2025 Ravichandra K S/o Shri Kenchappa Aged About 47 Years R/o No. 21, 18th Cross, Kanaka Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560032 ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (C.B.I.) Through Investigating Officer, C.B.I., A.C.-I I I, New Delhi ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ramakant Gaur along with Mr. Mayank Kumar, 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 CBI/AC-III/New Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) r/w Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’). GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.10.30 18:32:14 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, Mr. Ravichandra K., was arrested on 01.07.2025 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with Case No. RC2182025A0014, dated 30.06.2025, registered at CBI/AC-III, New Delhi. The applicant has been accused of offences punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleges that certain officials of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and the National Medical Commission (NMC), in criminal conspiracy with intermediaries and representatives of several private medical colleges, were involved in acts of corruption, abuse of official position, and manipulation of the NMC inspection process. It is alleged that the accused persons unlawfully accessed and disseminated confidential files, disclosed inspection schedules in advance, and facilitated fraudulent inspections by arranging proxy faculty members, fictitious patients, and falsified biometric attendance, in exchange for illegal gratification. 3. In the present case, it is alleged that on 30.06.2025, the applicant was apprehended by CBI officers in Bangalore during an alleged exchange of bribe money amounting to ₹16.62 lakhs. The CBI claims that the applicant, acting at the behest of his wife, Dr. Chaitra M.S., a member of the NMC inspection team, collected the said amount from or on behalf of Dr. Manjappa C.N., another NMC member, through one Dr. Sathish / Mr. Sathisha A., in 3 furtherance of a conspiracy to secure a favourable inspection report for Shri Ravaputra Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur, at the instance of its Chairman, Shri Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj, in collusion with Mr. Mayur Rawal. The residential premises of the applicant were searched by CBI on 01.07.2025; however, no incriminating materials were recovered. The prosecution has not found any inspection report favouring SRIMSR, which forms the sole basis of the allegations. The applicant contends that Mr. Sathisha A. has been wrongly implicated in place of some Dr. Satish, and that the source and ownership of the alleged bribe money remain unverified, with no established link to SRIMSR. The applicant was not provided with a copy of the FIR dated 30.06.2025 or the arrest memo dated 01.07.2025 prior to his production before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), City Civil Court, Bangalore (CBI Special Court), on 01.07.2025, when a transit remand was granted. He was subsequently produced before the Special Judge (CBI Cases), Raipur, on 02.07.2025, who ordered five days of police custody, followed by judicial custody. The FIR was made available to the accused persons only on 03.07.2025, after directions of the Special Court. 4. Thereafter, the CBI, through its remand application dated 02.07.2025, sought police custody for interrogation and obtaining voice samples, which was granted. Upon completion, judicial custody was ordered on 07.07.2025, and the applicant has since 4 remained incarcerated in Raipur Central Jail, Chhattisgarh. The applicant’s bail application dated 21.07.2025 before the Special Court (CBI Cases), Raipur was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2025, primarily on the basis of the prosecution’s allegations. The applicant had also produced his medical report dated 23.05.2025, indicating an advised L4-L5 vertebral surgery, contending that continued detention without proper medical care was detrimental to his health. 5. Mr. Ramakant Gaur with Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the arrest and subsequent remand of the applicant are illegal and arbitrary. The grounds of arrest were not supplied by the Investigating Officer at the time of arrest or before the applicant was produced before the learned ACMM, Bangalore City, who granted the transit remand. Even the copy of the FIR was not furnished for three days thereafter. The learned Special Court, Raipur, overlooked these procedural lapses and granted police and judicial custody without verifying the legality of the arrest. It is submitted that such non-compliance violates the safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, as emphasised in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1244; Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254; and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269, wherein the Supreme Court held that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest vitiates both arrest and remand. 5 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Gaur that the applicant was kept in police custody for five days and has since remained in judicial custody for over a month without any further interrogation. His continued detention serves no investigative purpose and amounts to a violation of his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognised in Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2550, and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, which uphold the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” 7. Mr. Gaur also submits that the FIR names over thirty-five accused persons, including senior government officials, yet only the applicant, a private individual, has been selectively arrested without any credible evidence linking him to the alleged conspiracy. Such selective prosecution violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, liability primarily rests with public servants, and in the absence of proof of demand, acceptance, or abetment, the applicant’s prosecution cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed on P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152, holding that recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient to constitute an offence. 8. Mr. Gaur further contends that the circumstances indicate possible entrapment, as the applicant was suddenly apprehended in Bangalore, though the FIR was registered in Delhi, suggesting a pre-planned trap. The applicant also suffers from a severe spinal 6 injury (L4–L5) requiring urgent surgery, but adequate treatment has not been provided in jail, violating his right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Mr. Gaur lastly submitted that the applicant’s 14-year-old son is left in the care of a housemaid in Bangalore, as both parents are in custody, and his welfare and education have been severely affected. The welfare of a minor child, it is submitted, is a relevant consideration in granting bail. The applicant is a 47-year-old law- abiding citizen with permanent residence at No. 21, 18th Cross, Kanaka Nagar, Bangalore, having no criminal antecedents or risk of absconding. He has cooperated fully with the investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. In view of the settled principles laid down in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant be released on bail, particularly considering his health condition, family circumstances, and the absence of necessity for further custodial interrogation. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, submit that the present case arises from a large-scale conspiracy unearthed by the CBI in Case No. RC2182025A0014 dated 30.06.2025, registered under Section 61(2) of the BNS, and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the PC Act (as amended in 2018). The case involves several public officials of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government 7 of India, and members of the National Medical Commission (NMC), who, in collusion with intermediaries and representatives of private medical colleges, manipulated the process of statutory inspections and recognition of medical institutions. It is alleged that inspection schedules, assessors’ identities, and confidential internal communications were unlawfully disclosed to favoured institutions in exchange for monetary benefits. 11. Mr. Kumar further submits that the applicant, in conspiracy with his wife, Dr. Chaitra M.S., an NMC assessor, and other co- accused, played an active role in facilitating the acceptance of bribe money on behalf of co-accused officials to secure favourable inspection reports for Shri Ravaputra Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur. On 30.06.2025, the CBI apprehended the applicant in Bangalore during the exchange of ₹16.62 lakhs, which formed part of a total illegal gratification of ₹55 lakhs. The said recovery was made in the presence of independent witnesses and duly documented in the seizure memo. 12. It is further submitted by Mr. Kumar that the arrest of the applicant was made strictly in accordance with law, following the due procedure under the BNSS. The grounds of arrest were duly recorded and the applicant was produced before the competent court within the prescribed period. The investigation has revealed sufficient material indicating the applicant’s active involvement in handling and transmitting the bribe amount. The CBI also 8 contends that further investigation is ongoing, and releasing the applicant at this stage may prejudice the investigation, as he may attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, and the quantum of money involved, learned counsel submits that no case for bail is made out and the application deserves to be rejected. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 14. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the specific role attributed to him in the charge- sheet, it is evident that the applicant, a private individual, was arrested on 01.07.2025 by the CBI in connection with Case No. RC2182025A0014 dated 30.06.2025, arising out of alleged irregularities in the functioning of the National Medical Commission (NMC) and certain private medical institutions. The prosecution case, in essence, is that the applicant had gone to collect the alleged amount on behalf of his wife, who is also an accused in the same case, and both husband and wife are presently in judicial custody. It is not disputed that the residential premises of the applicant were searched immediately after his arrest; however, no incriminating documents, electronic data, or material directly connecting him with the alleged transaction or conspiracy were recovered therefrom. The record further reveals 9 that there are in total thirty-six accused persons, out of whom the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent court against twelve accused persons, eight of whom were arrested. The investigation, therefore, appears to be substantially complete so far as the present applicant is concerned. The prosecution has not been able to point out any specific necessity for his further custodial interrogation or any credible apprehension that, if released on bail, he would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 15. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the applicant has remained in custody since 01.07.2025, i.e., for almost four months, while the trial is yet to commence and, having regard to the number of accused persons and the voluminous nature of the record, is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The medical documents placed on record indicate that the applicant suffers from a serious L4–L5 vertebral condition for which surgical intervention was advised as early as May 2025, and that continued detention without proper medical treatment may cause grave prejudice to his health. Moreover, the undisputed circumstance that the applicant’s 14-year-old son is presently without the care of either parent, both being in judicial custody, also weighs in favour of granting bail. The applicant is a permanent resident of Bangalore, has deep roots in society, no criminal antecedents, and there is nothing on record to suggest any possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty, if granted. 10 16. Taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant’s medical condition, family circumstances, and the fact that there are as many as 136 prosecution witnesses and that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, is inclined to release the applicant on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed to ensure his presence during trial and to safeguard the interests of justice. 17. 17. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Ravichandra K, involved in Crime No.RC2182025A0014 registered at Police Station CBI/AC-III/New Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2) of the BNS r/w Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, 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. 11 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) 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. 18. 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