1 2025:CGHC:49830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5712 of 2025 Kamal Kant Patanwar S/o Shri Pratap Kumar Patanwar Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 51, Ask Gradios, Bhatagaon, Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Incharge, P.S.- EOW/ACB, Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station, Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and (Amendment Act, 2018) {wrongly mentioned in the bail application as Sections 120-B, 409 of BNS and 12(2), 13(1)a and 7(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988}. 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the respondent received source information wherein it has been alleged that the Directorate of Health Services issued an indent to Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (for short, the CGMSCL) for the procurement of reagents vide letter No. 750 dated 10.01.2022. Prior to issuing the indent, the Directorate neither ensured budget availability nor obtained administrative approval. This resulted in the creation of a financial liability of approximately Rs.411 crores on the Government without its prior knowledge or consent. The indent specified that the purchase order be issued in two parts, but neither the Directorate nor the CGMSCL established a schedule of delivery for the supply of reagents, and no action was taken in this regard. The CGMSCL issued the entire purchase order within a short span of 26-27 days. The supplier delivered the entire consignment to designated Health Centres at a single location, where no arrangements for storage or maintenance existed. This conduct suggests that the established protocols and vigilance measures were not followed, potentially to confer undue benefits to the reagent supplier. Upon verification, it was found that EDTA tubes used for blood sample collection were procured from Mokshit Corporation at Rs.2,352 per unit, whereas other institutions procured the same item at a maximum rate of Rs.8.50 per unit. Between January, 2022 and 31.10.2023, the CGMSCL, in collusion with Mokshit Corporation and CB Corporation, procured reagents worth billions of rupees. Additionally, the CGMSCL procured reagents worth Rs.300 crores solely to prevent the expiry of chemicals held by Mokshit Corporation Private Limited. These reagents were dispatched to over 200 primary health centres in the State without demand, despite the absence of CBC machines required to utilize them. The reagents had a remaining shelf life of only two to three months, and 3 to prevent spoilage, the CGMSCL initiated preparations to procure 600 refrigerators. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that reliable sources indicate that CGMSCL issued an e-tender for the supply of EDL drugs, non-EDL/consumables, test kits, food baskets, proprietary and non- proprietary consumables, AYUSH medicines, equipment, and disposal of expired medicines for the 2022-23, vide tender financial year process No. 182/EQP/CGMSCL/2022-23 dated 26.08.2022. The pre-bid meeting was scheduled for 29.08.2022, with tender document submission deadline set for 26.09.2022. Sources further revealed that Meril Diagnostics and Transasia Biomedical Limited, in August 2022, wrote to the Managing Director of the CGMSCL, stating that the specifications for medical equipment in the tender were tailored to favour a specific Company. They suggested that revising the specifications would enable more Companies to participate, ensuring better quality equipment at competitive rates, thereby benefiting the government. However, the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Health Services, while informing the Managing Director of CGMSCL about the pre-bid meeting, directed that the specifications, as determined by the State-Level Inspection and Testing Technical Committee based on district inputs, remain unchanged and the tender process be completed accordingly. The tender was participated in by Mokshit Corporation, Records & Medicare System, and Shri Sharda Industries. The Tender Committee (for short, the TC) recommended accepting the L-1 rates for equipment, reagents, consumables, and machine CMCs, and on 25.01.2023, recommended awarding the tender to Mokshit Corporation, which was subsequently approved by the Managing Director. Thus on the basis of said information, the present FIR has been registered for the offences under 4 Sections 120-B, 409 of the IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per charge-sheet, the allegation No. 1 has been alleged that Director, DHS issued demand order/intend dated 11.01.2022 for procurement of equipment as well as reagent without the analysing the exact quantity/figure required in the Primary Health Centres. The present applicant is not having any role to play because as per the procedure, indent was to be issued by the DHS and on the basis of which other procedure is followed. With respect to allegation No. 2 as alleged in the charge-sheet is before issuing indent/demand order, the budget for procurement of said equipment/reagent was not ascertained. Moreover, CGMSCL issued the work order within the gap of 26 to 27 days. As far as this allegation is concerned, the applicant humbly submitted that the DHS vide letter dated 03.03.2023, 24.07.2023, 30.10.2023, 14.09.2023, 20.09.2023, 22.09.2023, 03.11.2023 and 09.11.2023 has categorically stated that sufficient budget has been allocated by the concerned Department/State and therefore after the issuance of work order as well as procurement of the said equipment and reagent, bills have to be sent for its payment. On the basis of said directions, work order were issued by the CHMSC. The applicant has no role to play in this regard, it is the Finance Department which has to look after about the said budgetary provision. As is reflected from Nasti No. 1571/T dated 27.02.2023, on 02.06.2023, indent was issued by the DHS directing to the CGMSCL that it has been ascertained that only for 6 to 8 months, stock of reagents were available in the State and therefore purchase order should be issued for supply of reagents. On the basis of order dated 02.06.2023, purchase order was issued. But there was delay on the part of Mokshit 5 Corporation in supply of said reagents/equipment and it requested for extension of time for supply of reagents. Thereafter, time extension was granted vide note sheet dated 27.02.2023 bearing note sheet No. 1571/T (related to supply schedule). Since in indent dated 02.06.2023 it has been specifically pointed out by the DHS that the quantity is left only for the total span of 6 to 8 months. therefore, to curtail the shortfall of the reagents in the Primary Health Centres, second work order was issued. Further, no time limit was specified for issuance of the second work order in the indent dated 02.06.2023. The third allegation as alleged in the charge sheet is for storage of reagent, refrigerators were required to kept it in 4o Celsius. However, without such storage capacity, work order for procurement of reagents were issued. In this regard, the applicant is not liable for the said allegation. Store Manager was responsible to see whether storage capacity is available or not. Moreover, it cannot be treated as criminal act even if there are such lapses. No case under PC Act is made out. With respect to allegation No. 4 as alleged in charge sheet, it has been alleged that the specification mentioned in Tender No 182/2022-23 dated 26.08.2022 were tailor made to give preferential treatment to one particular Company. 5. Mr. Pandey submits that the draft of tender of said tender was drafted and finalized prior to the appointment of the applicant in CGMSCL. Moreover, tender document was uploaded in the website and bids were invited. The Envelope "A" was opened and technical as well as financial bid were compared by the TC. Thereafter, present applicant was appointed/joined on 08.12.2022 at CGMSCL. As per allegation, No. 5, it has been alleged that the Mokshit Corporation involved in collusive biding by forming cartel with other participants, Mr. Pandey submits that the tender was open to all and as per the prevailing rules, if three eligible 6 bidders participated then tender could be opened. In the instant case, three bidders were available and therefore tender was opened. Moreover, the applicant had no role to play because it was done before his appointment. As per the Nasti No. 95/T dated 18.05.2022, relating to Tender No. 168(R)/EQP/CGMSC/2022-23 dated 25.05.2022, on 23.05.2022, a note-sheet was initiated by the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSCL) pursuant to demand letters issued by the Directorate of Health Services (Chhattisgarh), Indravati Bhawan, bearing Reference No. DHS/K.Store/16/2021/744 dated 07.01.2022, and Reference No. /DHS/K.Store/16/2021/732 dated 04.01.2022, accompanied by specifications and testing parameters. Based on these, Tender 168/EQP/CGMSC/2022-23 dated 10.02.2022, was invited. Due to the absence of eligible bidders, the said tender was cancelled, and a proposal for re-tendering was put forth. The tender encompassed 18 types of equipment item codes. Modifications were made to the previously cancelled tender documents, with reasons duly recorded and revised tender documents were prepared. These documents were submitted to the Biomedical Engineer (BME) for review, revision, and guidance. On 23.05.2022, the BME forwarded the tender documents to the In-Charge Deputy Manager (Equipment) for further action, who, on the same date, forwarded the proposal to the In-Charge General Manager (Equipment). The General Manager (Equipment) then referred it to the Tender Drafting Committee. On 23.05.2022, the Tender Drafting Committee submitted the tender documents for the 18 equipment items, duly signed by the Deputy Manager (Purchase Officer), Deputy Manager (Finance), and Deputy Manager (Administration). The draft tender was forwarded to the Managing Director for further action, who noted the need for discussion. As per the file, discussions with the 7 Managing Director resulted in instructions to amend the tender documents. Accordingly, the tender documents were revised and approved by the BME, Deputy Manager (Equipment), and General Manager (Technical), and a new tender draft was submitted to the TC. Subsequently, as per the file, the then Managing Director noted that the TC should submit its opinion in the context of audit objections. The TC opined that rate estimation for equipment and reagents together was not feasible and recommended that proprietary article certificates for reagent kits be obtained from the requisitioning Department for procurement. However, the Managing Director disagreed with this opinion and decided that tenders should be finalized by including reagent rates. Consequently, the TC resolved that for equipment requiring reagents, the L1 determination would include reagents and consumables, while equipment not requiring reagents would be tendered separately. The rate contract for equipment would be valid for two years, and for reagents, it would be valid for eight years, with provisions for revising reagent rates every two years to ensure uninterrupted machine operation. As per the file dated 26.08.2022, equipment requiring reagents was proposed for Tender No. 182/EQP/CGMSC/22-23 dated 26.08.2022, and equipment not requiring reagents for Tender No. 183/EQP/CGMSC/22-23 dated 26.08.2022. Further, File No. 1043/T relating to CGMSCL Tender No. 182/EQP/CGMSC/22-23 dated 26.08.2022, proposed for equipment requiring reagents. As per page 2 of the file, pre-bid queries and representations were to be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on 01.09.2022. Queries were received from some Companies within the deadline and from others thereafter. Based on these queries, a letter bearing Reference No. 6996/CGMSCL/Equipment/2022 dated 09.09.2022, was sent to the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) for their opinion. In 8 response, DHS, vide letter Reference No. /DHS/K.Store/16/2022/332 dated 23.09.2022, received via e-mail, directed that the tender process be completed without altering specifications. This was noted and the file was forwarded by the Technical Assistant to the BME. The General Manager (Equipment) directed the opening of Cover-A. On 27.09.2022 the technical bid Cover-A was opened. The file indicates that four bidders participated in the tender. Out of 11 items, bids were received for 9. The Technical and Financial Evaluation of Cover-A for the participating bidders was conducted by the Technical and Finance Departments. During the evaluation, three firms M/s Mokshit Corporation, M/s Shree Sharda Industries, and M/s Recorders and Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd. were deemed eligible, while M/s Transasia Biomedical Ltd. was found ineligible by the TC. 6. Mr. Pandey further submits that the TC forwarded the file to the Managing Director with recommendations. Queries raised regarding M/s. Transasia Biomedical Ltd. on eight points and M/s Shree Sharda Industries concerning a production certificate issued by DIC Raipur, questioning how a production capacity of 20 lakh per annum for electro- diagnostic apparatus used in medical and surgical applications could be achieved with one skilled and five unskilled laborers. Additionally, the drug licenses (Forms 20B/21C) submitted by two bidders, issued on 19.09.2022, were less than three years old. Clarifications were sought on these points. The TC members, through an auditor's note, stated that manpower could not be assessed based on financial statements. The General Manager (Equipment) directed that clarifications be obtained from the firms, and the process proceeded. As per page 25 of the file, claims and objections were uploaded on the CGMSCL website on 28.11.2022. M/s Shree Sharda Industries and M/s Transasia Biomedical 9 Ltd. submitted their respective representations. M/s Shree Sharda Industries clarified that the 20 lakh production capacity referred to different equipment, with production plans based on requirements and purchase orders. They stated that their plant's capacity is utilized accordingly, employing an automatic Yamaha M-10 Pick and Place machine capable of producing 15,000 units daily, with manual assembly requiring contract-based manpower. Only one operator is needed to run the machine. On the second point, they noted that the tender conditions did not specify a three-year-old license requirement, only a valid license. Previously, no regulatory requirement existed for this product, but under MDR 2017, registration became mandatory from October (year unspecified), and their certificate remains valid. The TC accepted M/s Shree Sharda Industries' clarifications, recommended opening Cover-B, and forwarded the file to the Managing Director, who, agreeing with the recommendation, directed further action. Cover-B was opened, and a letter bearing Reference No. 10163/CGMSCL/Equipment/2023 dated 11.01.2023, was sent to the Directorate of Health Services to nominate subject experts for equipment demonstration. As per page 34 of the file, DHS, vide order Reference No. /DHS/16/K.Store/2023/579 dated 18.01.2023, received via email, nominated experts, and α demonstration was proposed for 20.01.2023, at the old Nurses Hostel, DKS Hospital, Raipur. The three firms were informed via e-mail on 19.01.2023. As per page 35, the subject experts Dr. Anil Parsai (Deputy Director, DHS), Dr. S.K.Chinzwar (Deputy Director, AIDS Control), Dr. Arvind Neral (Biochemistry Department, J.N.M. Medical College), Dr. Anand Verma (State Consultant, NHM, Chhattisgarh, Raipur), and Dr. P.K. Gupta (Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Raipur) conducted demonstrations of nine different equipment code names and models from M/s Mokshit 10 Corporation, M/s Recorders and Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Shree Sharda Industries, preparing a demo sheet and accepting all equipment. As per page 36, the required Cover-B documents were provided by all three firms, verified by B.L.Kapse against their submissions, and found consistent with the tabulated data. 7. It is further submitted that the In-Charge General Manager (Equipment) presented Cover-B for approval to the TC, which accepted report and Cover-B, recommending the opening of Cover-C. The file was forwarded to the Managing Director, who directed the opening of Cover-C. Pages 41 and 42 of the files compare the bid prices for nine medical equipment types, with M/s Mokshit Corporation being L1 for each. Pages 43 to 120 detail the bid prices for reagents, controls, and calibrators by the three firms. As per the note on page 122, pages 43 to 61 cover M/s Mokshit Corporation, pages 63 to 93 cover M/s Recorders and Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd., and pages 95 to 121 cover M/s Shree Sharda Industries' bids for reagents, consumables, and CMC rates. Pages 123 to 153 provide a comparative chart of equipment and reagent rates. As per page 155, the L1 rates were proposed for approval, and the file was forwarded it to the TC. On 25.01.2023, as per page 156, the TC accepted the recommended rates for equipment, reagents, consumables, and CMC, recommending a contract with the L1 bidder. The file was forwarded to the Managing Director, who, agreeing with the recommendation, directed necessary action. The approved list was uploaded on the CGMSCL website. As per page 172, a rate contract was signed between M/s Mokshit Corporation and CGMSCL. 8. Mr. Pandey next submits that as per medical documents itself, it is reflected that applicant was suffering from severe headache and other 11 problems for which he was hospitalized which could be ascertained from the medical reports. Moreover, if the movement of file was so urgent then it could have been through link officer by the Department as it was standard procedure which was followed by the CGMSCL. The applicant himself initiated action against Mokshit Corporation and passed necessary order/direction for its blacklisting. Earlier also, RC was entered with Mokshit Corporation with regard to similar equipment as well as reagents. Moreover, equipment mentioned in the Tender No. 182 was closed one and therefore, its price could not be ascertained/ compared. Further, it was open tender, no one was barred from participating. 9. As far as allegation of receiving of 0.5% commission is concerned, Mr. Pandey submits that there is not a single document annexed in the chargesheet which corroborate the allegation. Further, from the notesheet itself, it is reflected that communication/conversation through phone with vender is per se not prohibited/illegal. Moreover, there is no written direction which prohibits such conversation/communication. The applicant has been impleaded as an accused merely on the basis of memorandum statement of other co-accused. However, it is settled position of law that memorandum statement is not admissible under the eyes of law, only recovery pursuant to such statement is admissible. However, in the present case there is no such recoveries. Even if all the statement or entire charge-sheet is accepted then also there is no evidence which proves the guilt of the present applicant. The entire documents reflects that the tender comprising of closed system was floated at the instance of DHS and the State Government. The entire draft of so-called tailor-made specification was drafted/prepared before joining of present applicant. But it is surprising that none of those key 12 officers such as Directorate, DHS and Managing Director, CGMSCL have been made accused in the instant case. The applicant who was not having any role to play in drafting of tender, issuance of tender, selection of bidder and opening of Envelop A, B and C is impleaded as accused. From the note-sheet, it is clearly reflected that entire procedure of inviting tender was followed by the present applicant and at every stage prior sanction was obtained from the MD as well as committee member. But, still he is impleaded as accused. 10. Mr. Pandey next submits that from the note-sheet it is reflected that in a closed system it is not possible to compare a rate of reagents of different- different companies. This issue was raised and concern was duly communicated to the DHS. However, DHS, specifically given direction to proceed with a closed system and the said objection was overruled. As far as allegation of not conducting physical verification is concerned, as per the procedure prescribed for floating of tender, no where it is mentioned to conduct the physical verification. As per the work distribution circular, the applicant was not assigned with the duty to open envelop A, B or C. The role of investigating agency is in question reason being on 22.01.2025 at 6 p.m. the FIR bearing No. 05/2025 was registered in CCTNS portal. However, on the other hand the present applicant got the certified copy of FIR typed in plain paper alleged to be registered on 22.01.2025 at 6 p.m. bearing Crime No. 05/2025 but it is pertinent to mention that the content of CCTNS FIR and FIR typed in plain paper are different. In FIR which was typed in plain paper, it has been specifically mention that after the verification of source information it was found that the Managing Director of CGMSCL as well Director of Directorate Heath Service are responsible for the alleged scam. However, in CCTNS FIR the said Content is not mentioned. Hence, he 13 prays that the applicant may be released on bail. 11. On the other hand, Dr. Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the investigation, it has been revealed that the officers and authorities of the Directorate of Health Services and the CGMSCL while being posted as public servants, while discharging their official duties, have improperly and dishonestly performed 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 fraudulently misappropriating the property under their control, unnecessary purchase of machines and reagents has been made and neither the availability of budget was ensured for the said purchase nor any administrative approval was obtained in this regard. Thus, without bringing it to the notice of the State Government, a liability of about Rs.411 crore was created on the State Government. The officials/authorities-accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mokshit Corporation, CB Corporation, Records and Medicare System, Shree Sharda Industries and others, by restricting the competition of tender process No.182/EQP/CGMSCL/2022-23 dated 26.08.2022, by making such specification regarding equipment which could authorize a particular company to participate in the 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, thereby causing wrongful loss of Rs. 411 crore to the Government and causing wrongful benefit to themselves and the identified firm, on the basis of which a case under Section 13(1)A read with 13(2), 7(C) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended in 2018 and sections 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered 14 and investigation taken up. In the investigation of the case, the following accused were arrested on the basis of their involvement after evidence was found against them. (1) Shashank Chopra, son of Shanti Lal Chopra, address- Chopra Compound 35, Azad Ward Ganjpara Durg, Police Station Kotwali, District- Durg on 28.01.2025, and (2) Shri Basant Kumar Kaushik, Post- then General Manager Equipment, CGMSCL Raipur, (3) Shri Kshirodra Rautia, Post- then Biomedical Engineer, CGMSCL, (4) Dr. Anil Parasai, Post-then Deputy Director, Directorate of Health Services, (5) Shri Kamalkant Patanwar, Post-then In-charge General Manager Equipment, CGMSCL Raipur, (6) Shri Deepak Kumar Bandhe, Post- then Biomedical Engineer, CGMSCL, have been duly arrested on 21.03.2025. After collecting evidence in the case, on the basis of finding sufficient evidence against the accused to prosecute them, the final report, was presented in the court of Special Court of ACB, Raipur on 26.04.2025 under Section 13(1)A, read with Section 13(2), 7(C), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and 409, 120B, IPC, whose Special Case number is 02/2025. As there is a possibility of obtaining crucial evidence against the above accused in the case and also regarding the involvement of other tenderers like Shri Sarada Industries, Recorders & Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd., CB Corporation, public servants related to the case and other private accused in the case, the investigation is in progress under Section 173(8) CrPC (193(9)of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita). 12. Dr. Pande submits that the applicant was posted as Deputy Manager (Purchase and Operations) as well as General Manager (Technical) in CGMSCL. This is an important post for tender process and purchase proceedings. After opening of Cover-A in CGMSCL tender No.182/EQP/ CGMSCL/2022-23 dated 26.08.2022, despite objections by the then 15 Managing Director regarding the production and manpower of Shri Sharda Industries, the accused Kamalkant Patanwar did not conduct physical verification of Shri Sharda Industries despite having doubts. The tender process was taken forward by accepting the clarification given by the tendering firm Shri Sharda Industries. After seeing the documents of Shree Sharda Industries, the then Managing Director, Shri Abhijeet Singh sought clarification from the firm regarding the production of medical equipment, manpower, experience etc. The firm submitted clarification. Disagreeing with this, Shri Abhijeet Singh directed applicant to put up a note sheet to disqualify Sharda Industries. The applicant did not follow the instructions and informed accused Shashank Chopra about the same on which accused Shashank Chopra told the applicant not to write anything against him in the note sheet, and that he would see what to do with Mr. Abhijeet. The applicant admitted himself to Shri Medicine Hospital citing health reasons so that Shree Sharda Industries does not become ineligible. During this period, the then Managing Director was transferred and after his retirement, the applicant, acting with malice and fraud, obtained signatures from the members of the TC without informing the TC about all the above facts. During opening of cover-C in the process of tender number-182, as per rules, rate justification, market price and rates of similar equipment purchased by corporations of other states were to be obtained for the equipment, reagents and consumables. But in the said tender, this process was not adopted with the aim of benefiting Mokshit Corporation, due to which Mokshit Corporation supplied the equipment to CGMSCL at its desired price. 13. Dr. Pande submits that there was a definite pattern in the price bids given by the three qualified firms in cover-C. If this was observed, the 16 cartelization and pool tendering done by the accused firms could have been easily understood. But as the conspiracy to get the tender to Mokshit Corporation was pre-planned, the price bids of the three firms were not observed by the accused Kamalkant Patanwar. As a result, Mokshit Corporation supplied reagents, consumables and controls at rates three times higher than the MRP. Due to the involvement of applicant in conspiracy with accused firm Mokshit Corporation's partner Shashank Chopra, CGMSCL purchased reagents of Fully Automated Biochemistry Analyzer Machine at a rate higher than MRP due to which CGMSCL suffered financial loss of more than Rs. 52 Crores. Similarly, by purchasing reagents, consumables and controls of Semi-Automated Biochemistry Analyzer Machine and HbAlc Analyzer Machine at a rate higher than the MRP, CGMSCL has suffered financial loss of Rs.18 crores and Rs.3 crores respectively. Evidence has been found that the applicant received 0.5 percent commission on the purchase order in lieu of working on behalf of Shashank Chopra. During the said tender process period, some properties were purchased by accused Kamalkant Patanwar. These were hidden by the appellant during police interrogation. Further, analysis of the call data records (CDR) obtained during the investigation has clearly revealed that accused Shashank Chopra was in regular and continuous contact with many officials of CGMSCL including the applicant, Basant Kaushik, Kshirodra Rathoria, Dr. Anil Parsai. This technically proves the organised and pre-planned conspiracy between accused Shashank Chopra and the officials, which caused financial loss to the Government and harmed the transparency of the process. During the investigation it has been found that applicant purchased many properties in this period by his name and in the name of his family members which he was trying to hide during police enquiry. 17 The applicant, holding a responsible position as a government officer in the CGMSCL, was legally bound to act as a custodian of public interest and ensure fair, transparent, and lawful implementation of purchase proceedings of medical equipment and it's reagents. Instead of discharging these statutory obligations with integrity, the accused grossly misused his official position for personal gain and to benefit private individuals. By not providing specifications of medical equipment to the committee, the accused breached the public trust reposed in him and caused irreparable damage to the credibility of the administration. His actions represent not only misconduct but also a serious offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, undermining the faith of citizens in governance and the rule of law. The investigation has brought on record strong evidence of a deep-rooted conspiracy between the accused Shashank Chopda and the applicant. He continuously worked in favour of Shashank Chopda which lead to a huge financial loss to the State. This conspiracy was well-planned, executed with precision, and reflects the applicant’s active collusion with external criminal networks. The applicant is a well-off and financially strong and influential person. If he is granted bail, he can influence the evidence and witnesses. Apart from this, there is also a possibility of him fleeing abroad and as such, this bail application deserves to be rejected. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 15. The present is a case which involves economic offence and which is considered to be more serious than conventional crimes as they affect the entire economy and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country while shaking public confidence in the financial system. Such crimes committed during the course of economic or business activities cause financial harm and adversely impact the country's economic well- 18 being and financial health. These offences typically involve fraudulent activities that affect both public and private financial interests. The non- applicant has still to investigate the case with relation to the involvement of the government officials/officials of the CGMSCL without whose connivance, the applicant could not have been able to secure the tender in question and that too, at an excessive rate. The detailed objection filed by the respondent/State clearly establishes that prima facie there exists a case against the applicant, who while being posted as Deputy Manager (Purchase and Operations) as well as General Manager (Technical) in CGMSCL, was in a capacity to influence the members of the TC. The contention that the applicant was posted in the CGMSCL on 08.12.2022 after the tender process was over, does not merit acceptance as there are various documents available in the form of note sheets which goes to suggest that the applicant was part of the TC which bears his signature also at the relevant point of time, which has ultimately led to award of work order to Mokshit Corporation and caused financial loss to the State. 16. It is well settled that while granting bail, the Court has to consider three factors viz. flight risk or likelihood of fleeing justice, likelihood of tampering with the evidence and likelihood of influencing the witness. In the present case, since there is a connivance between a private Companies and the officials of the State and the CGMSCL, it cannot be ruled out that the applicant would not try to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Economic offences constitute a different class and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and is considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 19 17. 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 offenders 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 offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit 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.…” 18. 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 only a punishable offence 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. 19. 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 affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure and the economic offences 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 20 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.” 20. Further, this Court, vide order dated 13.06.2025, had rejected the regular bail application of one of the co-accused namely Shashank Chopda who had filed M.Cr.C. No. 3159/2025. After rejection of his bail application, the said co-accused challenged the same before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9284/2025, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2025. 21. The other co-accused namely Rajesh Gupta, Abhishek Kaushal, Neeraj Gupta, and Avinesh Kumar, had filed anticipatory bail applications before this Court being M.Cr.C.(A) Nos. 317/2025, 321/2025, 328/2025 and 401/2025, which stood rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2025. The said order was challenged by the co-accused persons by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5151/2025, 5177/2025, 5179/2025 and 5169/2025, which also stood dismissed by order dated 08.09.2025. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case though charge sheet has been filed in respect of the applicant, 21 however, the non-applicant is still investigating the matter with respect to other accused persons and whose involvement is to be unearthed during investigation, and further that the present is a case where the allegation is that the applicant alongwith other co-accused have caused a huge financial loss to the tune of Rs. 411 crores to the State Government and it is not an ordinary financial crime but a crime in an organized manner, the documents appended with the petition prima facie discloses that the investigation has established that the applicant is involved in an elaborate and well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy, granting bail to the applicant at this stage would not only embolden corrupt practices but also send a highly detrimental message to society, undermining public confidence in the justice delivery system. 23. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant-Kamal Kant Patanwar involved in Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station, Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and (Amendment Act, 2018) is rejected at this stage. 24. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Raj / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.10.09 19:37:22 +0530