1 2025:CGHC:47282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5110 of 2025 Basant Kaushik S/o M.L. Kaushik Aged About 44 Years R/o Phase-2, Wood Island Colony, Amleshwar Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Superintendent Of Police, Economic O4ence Wing/anti Corruption Bureau, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent MCRC No. 6444 of 2025 Dr. Anil Parsai S/o Late Arvind Parsai Aged About 63 Years R/o L I G 62-63, Shankar Nagar, Raipur C.G.. ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Superintendent Of Police, Economic O4ences Wing/anti-Corruption Bureau, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For respective Applicants : Mr. V.V.S. Moorthy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar, and Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent/EOW-ACB : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.17 13:13:04 +0530 2 Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. The applicants have preferred these 2rst bail applications under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 05/2025, registered at Police Station - EOW/ACB, Raipur, District–Raipur (C.G.), for the o4ences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the IPC, and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2), and Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a secret information received at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, an FIR No.05/2025 dated 22.01.2025 was registered for o4ences punishable under Sections 120- B, 409, IPC and under Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and ,7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the case of the prosecution that in light of the scheme of "Hamar Lab", which is a District Level Health Centre, the Directorate of Health Services (for short, the DHS) had issued a demand letter to Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd. (for short, the CGMSCL) for purchase of medical equipment and reagents under the said scheme. The CGMSCL, in turn Coated Tender No. 182/EQP/ CGMSCL/2022-23 dated 26.08.2022 for rate contract of equipment, wherein one Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. was declared as the L-1. It has been alleged that concerned oEcers of Directorate of Health Services and CGMSCL entered into criminal conspiracy with Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. by making tailor-made conditions and technical speciFcation in the tender to beneFt Mokshit Pvt. Ltd. Further, it has also been alleged that the criminal breach of trust was done with an intention 3 to cause proFt to the said Company by making unnecessary purchase of medical equipment and reagents, that too, at a higher rate which resulted in a total loss of Rs.411 Cr. to the State Government. 3. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohit Kumar, and Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, {in MCRC No. 6444 of 2025} submits that the applicant-Dr. Anil Parsai has been arrested on 21.03.2025 pursuant to the lodgment of the FIR No.05/2025. This is despite the fact that the present applicant aged 63 years, who was holding the post of Deputy Director, Central Stores Branch was not even speciFcally named in the FIR. It was only in the charge-sheet dated 25.04.2025 wherein, the name of the applicant as an accused Fnds its place for the Frst time in which there is no substantial evidence against him of having committed any particular act for any pecuniary gain. 4. It is next submitted that the applicant-Dr. Anil Parsai was posted as the Deputy Director. His role was to indent equipment on a need basis, manage inventory and ensure that established store procedures were followed. Though he may have prepared indent lists or submitted data relating to requisitions, his main function was to implement purchase policies and directives by identifying needs rather than setting them unilaterally or making Fnal Fnancial commitments for multi-crore transactions. CGMSCL, as the procuring authority was solely responsible for the actual procurement decision. Hence, under no stretch of imagination can it be construed that the applicant by using his oEcial entrusted powers assisted Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd in securing the said tender. It is submitted that the charges levelled against the applicant in the charge-sheet are without any basis and material. The applicant's power was strictly limited to intending within the Fnancial 4 limit of Rs. 1 lakh, as claimed, it is legally impossible for him to be the sole facilitator or primary Fnancial decision maker for losses running into crores of rupees. CGMSCL has the authority to purchase equipment, including large-scale procurement. The Government's procurement rules are steep and mandate multiple levels of Fnancial sanction and approval for expenditure beyond the prescribed limit. Further, it has also alleged that the applicant herein was receiving a commission of the purchase order from Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. In light of such allegations, the provisions of the PC Act were attracted in the FIR. It is submitted that in catena of judgments, it has been Feld that to attract Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratiFcation and acceptance thereof is a sine qua non. It is pertinent to highlight that no such gratiFcation has ever been seized or recovered from applicant herein till date. Even in the charge-sheet, no substantial proof has been asserted by the prosecution to prima facie substantiate the allegation of demand or acceptance. Interestingly, no such allegation qua the accused No.1-Mr. Shashank Chopra, Director of Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. has been made in the charge-sheet of him ever having o4ered such alleged gratiFcation to the applicant. The case putforth by the prosecution is that there has been a criminal conspiracy by the applicant. Firstly, on the allegation of criminal conspiracy, there is no allegation with regard to any prior conspiracy or meeting of minds with any accused for the intended object of committing an illegal act. Secondly, it has been alleged by the prosecution that the call data records establishes contact between the applicant and one Mr. Shashank Chopra. The said allegation holds no ground as it is circumstantial in nature and the same, even if proved, does not make out any criminality. Thirdly, it has to be duly considered that the post 5 which the applicant held on was one where he had to regularly be in touch with suppliers regarding adequate supply of medicines, equipment etc. in Labs. The other charge levelled against the applicant is that of criminal breach of trust by a public servant. 5. Mr. Moorthy submits that for o4ence under Section 409, IPC to be attracted against the accused, the ingredient(s) of the public servant being "entrusted" with a property of which he is duty bound to account for has be to made out and also there has to be "misappropriation or conversion of that entrustment for personal use". Firstly, in the present case, no such ingredient of entrustment has been made out. The position of the applicant speciFcally as the Deputy Director in the Central Stores nowhere states that he was the only person entrusted with the work and neither was he the solely authorized for procurement of equipment beyond worth Rs. 1,00,000. Further, nowhere has it been alleged that the procurement was solely entrusted to the applicant for him to have committed criminal breach of trust as in any case the Fnal approving authority was the DHS. Secondly, nowhere has it been alleged by the prosecution that the applicant misappropriated or converted the said entrustment, if any, for personal use. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the ingredients of the said o4ences are not made out even prima facie. The purchase of the said articles took place 5 years back and is nowhere related to the present Tender No.182 under scrutiny. This very fact displays that the prosecution is deliberately harassing the applicant by putting such allegations against him for the decisions taken by the Department half a decade back. One of the other allegations levelled against the applicant is that he along with others deliberately added EDTA Tube in the proprietary article tender of Pediatric Part WBC Di4erential Analyzer with the intention of beneFting 6 Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. It is pertinent to mention herein that the said allegation is also not related to the present Tender No.182 under scrutiny. The allegation levelled relates to a tender which was Coated 4 years back. The prosecution witnesses as mentioned in the charge- sheet are as many as 71 in number and as such, the trial would go on for a considerable period of time. Further, the applicant herein is a father to a daughter who reside with him and his wife in Chhattisgarh, the said fact by itself nulliFes any reason for him absconding. Hence, by taking the relevant facts into consideration, it is humbly submitted that the present application be allowed. 6. With respect to the applicant-Basant Kaushik {M.Cr.C. No. 5110/2025}, Mr. Moorthy, submits that the applicant was posted on deputation to CGMSCL. Later, on 14.07.2022 he was transferred back to his parent Department, Controller, Food and Drug Administration, Chhattisgarh. He reported on duty to his parent department on 15.07.2022. The said tender in question came to be Coated CGMSCL on 28.08.2022, which is way after his oEcial transfer. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the above-mentioned facts would establish that by the time the tender came to be Coated, the applicant was transferred and was not holding any post whatsoever in CGMSCL. As such, it cannot be construed that the applicant by using his oEcial entrusted powers assisted Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd in securing the said tender. The charges levelled against the applicant in the charge-sheet are without any basis and material. The allegation that the applicant with his decisional inCuence got tailormade conditions and technical speciFcation without formally presenting it to the members of Tender Scrutiny Committee and also got the signatures of the Committee Members individually without presenting it to them in the meeting, are without any foundation because 7 there is no shred of evidence to prove that the same was done. There has been no deposition on oath by any of the witness to prove that the same was done by the applicant. The very fact that the Committee was called upon by DHS by itself shows that the applicant was not in an authoritative position to mend the speciFcations at his pleasure, as the authority of approval vested with DHS. Secondly, the approval granted by DHS was not solely on the basis of recommendations of the Committee, as due weightage was also given to the speciFcations of the State level experts. Thirdly, the committee consisted of 7 members out of which serious allegations have been levelled only against the applicant along with one other member. The aforementioned fact by itself substantiates that the applicant has been selectively targeted in the present case. Further, it has also been alleged that the applicant was receiving a commission to the tune of 0.5% of the purchase order from Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. In light of such allegations, the provisions of the PC Act have been attracted in the FIR. 7. Mr. Moorthy advances similar submissions and contentions as has been advanced in case of applicant-Dr. Anil Parsai. In addition to that, he submits that so far as the allegation that the applicant along with others approved the rate contract for ‘Chanda 9904’ under proprietary article without checking the validity of proprietary articles is concerned, to highlight at the forefront, it submitted that the said transaction for purchase of the said article took place 5 years back and is nowhere related to the present Tender No.182 under scrutiny. This very fact displays that the prosecution is deliberately harassing the applicant by putting such allegations against him for the decisions taken by the Department half a decade back. ‘Chanda 9904’ is a blood cell counter. During 2020, a letter was received by Chief Medical and Health OEcer 8 for purchase of the Blood Cell Counter Machine for prevention of Covid 19. In the same letter, it was speciFcally mentioned that model ‘Chanda 9904 Blood Cell Counter Machine’ be purchased from Mokshit Corp. as the said equipment is already operational in Districts and all the lab technicians are trained to operate the said machine. To this, an objection claim notice was put on the website of CGMSCL to maintain transparency. In light thereof, one M/s Sysmex raised an objection stating that they also manufacture the CBC machine model-XP-300 which is proprietary as well as closed system. The said objection was duly noted in the note sheet of the tender committee, however since a speciFc demand of ‘Chanda-9904’ was made by the Chief Medical and Health OEcer himself citing reasons of is familiarity by Lab Technicians especially during the Covid-19 period, therefore the Tender Committee approved the said request for purchase. One of the other allegations levelled against the applicant is that he along with others deliberately added EDTA Tube in the proprietary article tender of Pediatric Part WBC Di4erential Analyzer with the intention of beneFting Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. It is pertinent to mention herein that the said allegation is also not related to the present Tender No.182 under scrutiny. The allegation levelled relates to a tender which was Coated 4 years back. The said tender came to be Coated in light of a demand letter raised by DHS for the requirement of Pediatric Part WBC Di4erential Analyzer along with reagent and "EDT Tube". Hence, Frstly, the allegation of the applicant herein adding EDTA tube is without any basis, as the demand for the same was raised by DHS for providing the same to health centers in various Districts of the State. Secondly, the note sheet of the said tender duly establishes that the rates quoted in the said tender were approved on the basis test reports submitted by 9 the subject experts of the technical committee duly constituted by DHS. Hence, the approval granted, was on the basis of the report submitted by the subject experts, which in turn was accepted by the Tender Committee constituting of as much as 6 members, including the Applicant. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that it would be wrong to allege that the applicant had any role to play in purchasing the said EDTA tubes. 8. Mr. Moorthy makes similar submissions as advanced in M.Cr.C. No. 6444/2025 and prays that the applicants in both the petitions be released on bail. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SPL (Crl) No.5151/2025 titled as Rajesh Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh tagged with three other similar SLP(Crl), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 07.04.2025 granted interim protection from arrest to 4 other co-accused in FIR No.05/2025 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur. 9. On the other hand, Dr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/EOW-ACB, relying on the objection Fled, submits that the role of the applicant-Dr. Anil Parsai was that to prepare indent for the supply of reagents, the applicant-Dr. Anil Parsai constituted a State Level Committee on 23.05.2023 arbitrarily without the permission of the Director of Health Services, who is a high administrative and statutory authority. This action was taken in the absence of a fully authorized order and misuse of administrative power is clearly reCected. In the said committee, Dr. Parsai nominated himself as a Member and kept the decision process under his control. In the Committee Meeting, neither a proper group discussion was conducted, nor were signatures taken from all the nominated members. While doing a table top exercise, the DHS oEcer got the indent sheet prepared while 10 hiding the facts before the Committee. In the investigation, it has come to light that on di4erent occasions, signatures were taken from only four Members separately, which directly a4ects transparency and legitimacy of the process. Bypassing the draft indent sheet prepared by the Committee, Dr. Parsai and others prepared a custom and pre- determined indent list and corresponded with CGMSCL for issuing the complete purchase order on 02.06.2023. This entire action clearly shows that Dr. Anil Parsai not only violated the rights of the Committee, but also took a unilateral decision by inactivating a legitimate forum. Reagents which are required very little even in District Hospitals were supplied in suEcient quantities to Primary Health Centers, whereas there were no necessary machines, trained human resources or storage facilities for use there. This decision was unnecessary and irrational. The calculation of the demand made by the Directorate was also not based on any scientiFc basis, but was based on a pre-determined indent sheet, which was merely a rough format. The availability of human resources in the Health Centres, checking of storage capacity, power supply, availability of space etc. were not tested for this purchase. Apart from this, the DHS recommended reagents without conFrming the existing resources of any institution. It is clear that this entire process is a symbol of planned negligence, haste, collusion and Fnancial opaqueness. 10. It is submitted that the role of Dr. Anil Parsai in the indent made for the supply of regents has been extremely objectionable and irresponsible. He got the list of regents prepared arbitrarily, bypassing the clear decisions of the expert committee. Many such regents which were not required or which were recommended to be removed by the Committee such as Cardiac Marker, Cancer Marker were added again and their 11 quantity was also deliberately increased. This caused unnecessary Fnancial loss of crores of rupees to the Government. Apart from this, Dr. Parsai used the Committee's meeting and opinion only as a formality in the indent determination process. He not only suppressed the objections of the experts, but also got signatures in favor of predetermined decisions in the Fles, which makes it clear that the entire process was already being controlled to beneFt the Mokshit Corporation. The Committee which determined the technical speciFcations of the equipment under the 15th Finance Commission had suggested the need for a 2-8 degree celsius digital display refrigerator for the maintenance of reagents. Dr Anil Parsai was also a member of this committee. Despite knowing that the Health Institutions did not have the said refrigerators required for storing reagents, the DHS not only prepared huge indents but also directed CGMSCL to supply reagents to the health centres. An overview of the entire process clearly indicates that Dr. Anil Parsai's role was not limited to just being the convener or representative of the Committee, but he entire indent completely controlled the determination and approval process. On many occasions, he adopted an arbitrary attitude by ignoring the genuine opinion and suggestions of the Committee Members, as a result of which the regents were supplied in quantities many times more than the actual requirement. Even where there was no laboratory, trained sta4 or possibility of use, reagents were sent in uniform and large quantities. This further strengthens the suspicion that this distribution was done by Dr. Anil Parsai as per some pre-planned scheme, biased decision or keeping some personal/business interest in mind. There were many Primary Health Centres where neither refrigerator facilities were available nor regular lab technicians were posted, yet large quantities of 12 reagents were sent there, which were not used at all and most of the reagents were destroyed due to expiry. Dr. Parsai deliberately used his inCuence to get the supplies made to non-useful centres, which caused Fnancial loss to the government and harmed both the transparency and objective of the scheme. Due to the disregard of experts advice, irrational demand and lake of resources availability at the facilities, reagents worth over Rs. 161 crore rupees expired till date 05.04.2025. 11. Tender No. 182/EQP/CGMSCL/2022-23 dated 26.08.2022 was issued for the rate contract of equipment and reagents under the Hamar Lab Scheme. On the basis of its pre-bid meeting, M/s Transasia Biomedicals, M/s Meril Diagnostics and Clear Imaging Medical Systems Private Limited had submitted representations. In which M/s Transasia Biomedicals, M/s Meril Diagnostics had suggested changes while describing the speciFcations of the equipment as tailor made. CGMSCL had corresponded with DHS for necessary action on the said representation. But Dr. Anil Parsai and others deliberately concealed the facts and did not inform the senior oEcer on time. In the last days of the tender, the senior oEcer was informed due to compulsion; due to which the objection could not be presented before the committee and due to which no changes were made in the speciFcations. Dr. Anil Parsai and Kshiroudra Rautia were assisted in declaring those Frms/companies eligible/qualiFed by including their equipment in the demonstration proceedings despite knowing that machines of other make and model were presented by Shri Sharda Industries and Recorders & Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd. during the demonstration process during opening of Cover-B. After issuing the purchase order of equipment under tender number-182 by CGMSCL, indents for starter kits were prepared on their own without the opinion of the Expert Committee due to which reagents 13 which were not required by the institutions were also purchased. 12. It is also submitted by Dr. Pande that the call data record (CDR) analysis establishes the fact that Dr. Anil Parsai had frequent telephonic conversations with Shashank Chopra, especially during the period when the decision making process related to tender number 182 was in its crucial phase. The date-wise call details clearly show that there was continuous communication between Dr. Parsai and Shashank Chopra. This is not a coincidence but an indication of a clear conspiracy in which the process was tilted in favour of Mokshit Corporation by establishing prior coordination at every crucial juncture. The investigation has brought on record strong evidence of a deep-rooted conspiracy between the accused Dr. Anil Parsai continuously working in the favour of Shashank Chopda which leads a huge Fnancial loss to the Chhattisgarh Government. This conspiracy was well-planned, executed with precision, and reCects the accused's active collusion with external criminal networks. The applicant is a well-o4 and Fnancially strong and inCuential person. If he is granted bail, he can inCuence the evidence and witnesses. Apart from this, there is also a possibility of him Ceeing abroad. 13. With respect to the applicant-Basant Kaushik, Dr. Pande submits that applicant-Basant Kaushik, was a key member of the Tender Scrutiny Committee in CGMSCL, and has misused his seniority and decision making power to get 'tailor made' conditions and technical speciFcations approved to beneFt Mokshith Corporation in several tenders including tender No. 182. His recommendation in the committee was generally considered Fnal, which made other members hesitant to raise objections. This makes it clear that he used the committee only as a formal seal and ignored real transparency. In the Expert Committee 14 constituted under the Hamar Lab scheme, applicant Basant Kaushik did not formally present the speciFcations of the medical equipment in the technical speciFcation committee nor did he provide suEcient information for group discussion. He got the speciFcations signed by the committee members individually without presenting them in the meeting. This makes it clear that the group decision making process of the committee was deliberately neutralized so that Mokshit Corporation could be given a predetermined beneFt. In the previous tender number 168 of CGMSCL tender number 182, there were provisions for the supplier of equipment to provide 100 test starter kits with each equipment. This was removed by the applicant Basant Kaushik and Kshiroudra Rautia with the aim of beneFting Mokshit Corporation due to which CGMSCL had to purchase starter kits unnecessarily and the Government su4ered a Fnancial loss of about Rs 121.25 crore. The applicant took the action of rate contract on the demand received from the District for CBC machine due to which later machines worth about Rs. 38.33 crore were purchased without competitive tender. In the tender process conducted under proprietary article by applicant Basant Kaushik, the rate contract proceedings were completed without reviewing the proprietary certiFcate attached by the tenderer Frm Mokshit Medicare Private Limited despite it not being correct. Thus, evidence of gross negligence by ignoring the CG Store Purchase Rules has been found. When Sysmax India Private Company raised objections during the purchase process of CBC machine, neither the opinion of experts was sought nor the opinion of the demander was taken for its resolution. Without even analyzing the technical aspects of the equipment, the claim objection was rejected based only on the demand letter of CMHO Durg. In the note sheet related to the rate 15 contract of CBC machine, evidence has been found of him signing it on back date and getting signatures from senior oEcers. 14. Mr. Pandey submits that the letter received from Mokshit Medicare Private Limited for justiFcation of rates of CBC machine and reagents is shown to have been opened before the tender committee 14.12.2020 whereas there is evidence of this letter being opened only on 07.12.2020 which shows that the meeting of the Tender Committee was not held. EDTA tube was deliberately added (included) in the proprietary article tender of Pediatric 3 Part WBC Di4erential Analyzer Machine by accused Basant Kaushik with the intention of beneFting Shashank Chopra, Director of Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 15. EDTA tubes supplied were distributed to Health Centres by showing them as belonging to Diatron Company. In the investigation it was found that Diatron Company does not manufacture EDTA tubes. These were purchased at many times more price than the actual price by declaring them as special type of EDTA tubes due to which the government su4ered Fnancial loss of about Rs. 1,98,82,000/-. When a member of the Tender Committee raised objections regarding the proprietary article of Pediatric 3 Part WBC Di4erential Analyzer, the rate justiFcation of the said machine was rejected by the then Managing Director Shri Kartikeya Goyal after the opinion of the objecting Committee Member. After keeping the tender process pending unnecessarily for about 2 months, when Shri Kartikeya Goyal was transferred, Basant Kaushik deliberately took signatures from him without informing the Tender Committee of the facts. It is clear that this act was done by Basant Kaushik with the purpose of beneFting the director of Mokshit Medicare Private Limited. 16 16. Applicant-Basant Kaushik who was then Deputy Manager in charge of Purchase and Operations. Despite the price of the said CBC machine/pediatric 3 part WBC di4erential analyzer machine being more than the prescribed limit, the purchase proceedings were made arbitrarily ignoring the provisions of CG Store Purchase Rules. Neither the registration documents were taken from the supplier nor the documents related to his Fnancial capacity were obtained. Despite the price of the CBC machine/pediatric 3 part WBC di4erential analyzer machine being more than the prescribed limit, the purchase proceedings were made without obtaining approval from the competent authority. Evidence has been found that it received a commission of 0.5 percent of the purchase order in return for working on behalf of Shashank Chopra. The applicant was posted in CGMSCL due to the inCuence of Shashank Chopra himself. He himself has admitted this fact, which proves that he was not just an oEcer but a strategic member of Shashank's network through which Shashank controlled the tender and equipment supply processes. Further, analysis of the Call Data Records (CDR) clearly reveals that Basant Kaushik was in regular contact with Shashank Chopra, Director of Mokshit Corporation. This communication pattern is a clear evidence of the bias in the Government decision making process under external inCuence and the entire process was rigged to provide pre-planned beneFts. During the investigation it has been found that Basant Kaushik has purchased many properties in this period by his name and his wife's name which he was trying to hide during police enquiry. The case is currently under investigation. The role of the applicant in the crime is clearly reCected. Considering the severity of the crime and the circumstances, Dr. Pandey prays for rejection of the bail applications. 17 17. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 18. In the present case, both the applicants are government oEcials holding key positions and were in a position to inCuence the Tender Committee and the detailed objection Fled by the respondent/ACB goes to show their individual roles which prima facie establishes that the action of the applicants in placing orders of various reagents and medical equipment to the M/s. Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The manner in which manipulations have been done, signatures of the Committee members have been obtained, the objections of other members of the Tender Committee have been ignored and orders have been placed to Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and further the supplies have been made of those reagents / equipments to CHCs/PHCs in bulk quantity without there being any necessity, itself is an indicator of the fact that the applicants are involved in this organized crime. 19. The present is a case which involves economic o4ence and which is considered to be more serious than conventional crimes as they a4ect the entire economy and pose a serious threat to the Fnancial health of the country while shaking public conFdence in the Fnancial system. Such crimes committed during the course of economic or business activities cause Fnancial harm and adversely impact the country's economic well-being and Fnancial health. These o4ences typically involve fraudulent activities that a4ect both public and private Fnancial interests. The respondent has still to investigate the case with relation to the involvement of some of the other government oEcials/oEcials of the CGMSCL without whose connivance, the entire conspiracy could not have been hatched which has caused huge Fnancial loss to the public exchequer. 18 20. It is well settled that while granting bail, the Court has to consider three factors viz. Cight risk or likelihood of Ceeing justice, likelihood of tampering with the evidence and likelihood of inCuencing the witness. In the present case, since there is a connivance between a private Companies and the oEcials of the State, it cannot be ruled out that the applicants holding inCuential positions in the Department, would not try to tamper with the evidence or inCuence the witnesses. Economic o4ences constitute a di4erent class and need to be visited with di4erent approach in the matter of bail. The economic o4ence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and is considered as grave o4ences a4ecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the Fnancial health of the country. 21. In State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal {(1987) 2 SCC 364}, the Apex Court observed as under: "The entire community is aggrieved if the economic o enders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic o ence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal pro&t regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.…” 22. Further, in State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishnan Dattatreya Kumbhar {(2012) 12 SCC 384}, it has been observed by the Apex Court that corruption is not 19 only a punishable o4ence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. 23. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, {(2013) 7 SCC 466}, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white collar crimes which has a4ected the Fber of the country’s economic structure and the economic o4ences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. It was further observed as under: “27. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, 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" 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 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.” 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o4ence levelled against the applicants and the fact that in the present case though charge sheet has been Fled in respect of the applicants, however, the respondent is still investigating the matter with respect to 20 other accused persons who connived with the applicants, and other co- accused persons, and are still to be arrested and whose involvement is to be unearthed during investigation, and further that the present is a case where the allegation is that the applicants alongwith other co- accused have caused a huge Fnancial loss to the tune of Rs. 411 crores to the State Government and it is not an ordinary Fnancial crime but a crime in an organized manner. The documents appended with the bail petitions prima facie discloses that the investigation has established that the applicants masterminded an elaborate and well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy by placing orders in respect of even unwanted equipment / reagents and that too, in bulk quantities. The acts committed by the applicants are not only grave economic o4ences but also crimes against the welfare of society at large. Granting bail to the applicants at this stage would not only embolden corrupt practices but also send a highly detrimental message to society, undermining public conFdence in the justice delivery system. 25. So far as the contention of the applicants that the arrest of one of the co- accused Rajesh Gupta, has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, the case of the applicant stands on a di4erent footing as the applicants herein appear to be the direct beneFciary in the crime in question and cannot be equated with that of Rajesh Gupta. As such, this Court is of the view that this is not a Ft case to enlarge the applicants on bail. One of the co-accused namely Shashank Chopda, involved in this o4ence had Fled M.Cr.C. No. 3159/2025, which stood rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025, and thereafter, the said co-accused approached the Apex Court by Fling SLP(Crl.) No. 9284/2025. The Apex Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the same vide order dated 08.09.2025 and as such, the order passed by 21 this Court stands aErmed. 26. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicant-Basant Kaushik and Dr. Anil Parsai involved in Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station, Economic O4ence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, for the o4ence punishable under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are rejected at this stage. 27. OEce is directed to provide a certiFed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaibhav