1 2025:CGHC:52794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8197 of 2025 Raghavan Randeep Nair S/o Shri Pariyarath Raghavan Aged About 44 Years R/o L-2/52- B, First Floor, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110017 (Details Of Applicant Fathers Name Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title Of Impugned Order Dated 07/08/2025) ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) Through Investigating Officer, CBI AC- III, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Nisha Bineesh with Mr. Tanmay Rai, Mr. Aashish George and Mr. Jibin Joseph, Advocates. For Respondent/CBI : 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 GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.10.30 18:32:14 +0530 2 Sections 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) R/w Section 7, 7A, 8,9,10 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) (as amended in 2018) and Section 66 & 72-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: • The present case, FIR/RC No. 2182025A0014, was registered by CBI/AC-III, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Section 61(2) of the BNS read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the PC Act. The registration was based on source information indicating that certain public officials associated with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW), Government of India, and the National Medical Commission (NMC), in criminal conspiracy with intermediaries and representatives of private medical colleges across the country, were indulging in large-scale corruption, abuse of official position, and misconduct. • It was alleged that these individuals facilitated unauthorized access, duplication, and dissemination of confidential files and sensitive information relating to medical colleges’ regulatory status and inspection schedules. Such prior disclosures allegedly enabled medical institutions to manipulate inspections by deploying proxy faculty, fabricating patient data, and bribing assessors to secure favourable inspection reports. 3 • The investigation revealed that officials including Ms. Poonam Meena, Sh. Dharamvir, Sh. Piyush Malyan (Section Officer), Sh. Anup Jaiswal, Sh. Rahul Srivastava, and Sh. Chandan Kumar of the MoH&FW were involved in the unlawful dissemination of classified information relating to inspection and approval processes in exchange for bribes. • The recipients of such confidential information reportedly included several private individuals and representatives of medical institutions, including Dr. Virendra Kumar (Gurugram), Ms. Manisha Joshi (New Delhi), Sh. Suresh Singh Bhadoria (Chairman, Index Medical College, Indore), Sh. Udit Narain (Kanpur), Dr. Joshy Mathew (New Delhi), and Sh. Mayur Raval (Registrar, Geetanjali University, Udaipur). • It was alleged that Dr. Virendra Kumar, in conspiracy with Dr. Jitu Lal Meena, then Whole-Time Member, Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB), extorted substantial amounts of bribe from private medical colleges for granting undue regulatory favours. These bribe amounts were allegedly routed through hawala channels and used for personal gains, including temple construction at Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. • Further, it was alleged that Dr. B. Hari Prasad, along with associates Dr. Ankam Rambabu and Dr. Krishna Kishore, operated in southern states, arranging dummy faculty and 4 facilitating issuance of regulatory approvals from NMC in exchange for bribes. Large sums of money were reportedly collected and transferred through both banking and hawala channels. • It was also alleged that officials such as Sh. Chandan Kumar were sharing confidential inspection-related information with Sh. Suresh Singh Bhadoria (Index Medical College) and Sh. Mayur Raval (Geetanjali University), who in turn, in conspiracy with R. Randeep Nair, Project Head, M/s Technify Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (applicant/accused), and other officials, solicited and received illegal gratification from medical colleges for advance disclosure of inspection details. • Specifically, it was alleged that the applicant/accused, R. Randeep Nair, in collusion with co-accused persons, approached medical colleges assuring them of prior information regarding NMC inspections in exchange for substantial bribes, thereby subverting the statutory inspection process. • The Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, through its Chairman, Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj, and Director, Atul Kumar Tiwari, allegedly sought such confidential inspection details through Mayur Raval and offered illegal gratification of ₹25– 30 lakhs. On 26.06.2025, Raval reportedly informed Tiwari of 5 the upcoming inspection scheduled for 30.06.2025 and disclosed the names of the inspection team members. • Pursuant to the said acts, the FIR/RC No. 2182025A0014 dated 30.06.2025 was registered against 36 accused persons, including several public officials, private individuals, and representatives of medical colleges. • The applicant/accused, R. Randeep Nair, was arrested on 01.07.2025 and has been in custody since then. • After completion of investigation, CBI filed a charge sheet dated 28.08.2025 against 12 accused persons (including 8 arrested) for offences under Section 61(2) of BNS read with Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the PC Act and Sections 66 and 72-A of the IT Act. 3. Ms. Nisha Bineesh, assisted by Mr. Tanmay Rai, Mr. Aashish George, and Mr. Jibin Joseph, learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations made against the applicant are general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific overt act on his part that would justify his continued detention. It is submitted that as per the prosecution’s own material, the alleged conspiracy pertains to certain public officials of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission (NMC), in collusion with representatives of private medical colleges. The applicant, being 6 the Project Head of M/s Technify Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was only responsible for the technical maintenance and operational management of the NMC’s web portal. His role was purely administrative and confined to uploading duly verified and approved data relating to medical colleges on the website for public information. 4. Ms. Bineesh submits that the applicant has been unnecessarily arrayed as an accused merely because he was one of the five users authorized to access the Assessment Module of the NMC. Among these, only two users namely, the Director, MARB (Admin Role), and the SITEAM User (applicant) were authorized to perform certain scheduling and assignment functions, both of which required OTP authentication sent to the official registered email IDs. The said system was introduced only after 01.07.2025, subsequent to the applicant’s arrest. It is further urged that on 22.05.2025 and 23.05.2025, the applicant had sent emails to the Secretary, NMC, cautioning that the “Go Live” module of the system had not undergone sufficient testing and had not received CDAC clearance. The records also reflect that the system malfunctioned around 25.06.2025, and the rescheduling of inspections thereafter was carried out manually by the Director, MARB, Shri Anupam Anish Chauhan. Therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible for any alleged manipulation of inspection schedules. 7 5. It is further submitted by Ms. Bineesh that the applicant’s phone number was displayed on the NMC website only for providing technical assistance to users and not for any administrative or regulatory function. The allegation that he had disseminated confidential information regarding inspection dates or assessment schedules to private medical colleges is baseless and unsupported by any material evidence, as such information was never available on the public domain of the website. She submits that the applicant suffers from severe health ailments, including high blood pressure and optic nerve damage, resulting in partial loss of vision. Despite these medical conditions, he has been in continuous judicial custody since 02.07.2025, and after his transfer to Raipur, no further interrogation has been carried out by the investigating agency, indicating that his custodial interrogation is no longer required. 6. It is contended by Ms. Bineesh that the applicant satisfies the “triple test” for grant of bail—he is neither likely to abscond, nor to tamper with evidence, nor to influence witnesses. The charge sheet has already been filed against twelve accused persons, including the applicant, out of which eight have been arrested, and the investigation with respect to the remaining accused is still ongoing. However, further investigation is not a valid ground to deny liberty to the applicant when no recovery or custodial interrogation remains pending against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a law-abiding citizen, and has deep roots 8 in society. He is the only son of his aged father who is suffering from multiple ailments including progressive supranuclear palsy and Parkinsonism, requiring regular medical care and hospitalization. The applicant was scheduled to visit Kerala to attend to his father’s medical condition before his arrest. 7. It is further submitted by Ms. Bineesh that the trial is likely to take considerable time, as the prosecution has cited over 130 witnesses, and therefore, continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. Prolonged detention in such circumstances would amount to a violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) 9 SCC 787], Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920], P. Chidambaram v. CBI [(2020) 13 SCC 337], P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2020) 13 SCC 791], and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40], wherein it has been held that even in serious economic offences, bail should ordinarily be granted once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed, unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. 8. Lastly, it is submitted by Ms. Bineesh that the applicant is a permanent resident of L-2/52-B, First Floor, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi, and there is no apprehension of absconding or misuse of liberty. Since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet 9 has already been filed, the applicant may be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, strongly oppose the application for bail. They submit that the case pertains to a grave and organized corruption racket involving public officials of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission (NMC), New Delhi, who, in conspiracy with private intermediaries and representatives of various medical colleges, engaged in large-scale abuse of official position, manipulation of inspection processes, and receipt of illegal gratification. 10. It is submitted by Mr. Kumar that the investigation has revealed that the applicant, Shri R. Randeep Nair, in his capacity as Project Head of M/s Techinfy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., misused his access to the NMC’s Assessment Module to extract and share confidential data relating to inspection schedules and assessor details with co- accused Shri Mayur Raval. Shri Raval, in turn, passed this information to Shri Atul Kumar Tiwari of Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur, in exchange for bribes. The applicant’s role is not of a mere technical facilitator but of an active conspirator who exploited his privileged digital credentials for corrupt gain. Electronic and digital evidence, including server logs, intercepted communications, and audit trails, conclusively establish unauthorized access from the 10 applicant’s user ID prior to the inspection schedule. 11. It is contended by Mr. Kumar that the magnitude of the conspiracy, spanning multiple states and involving officials, assessors, and private institutions has caused severe prejudice to the credibility of the NMC’s regulatory system and to public faith in the integrity of medical education governance. He further argued that the applicant’s release at this stage poses a serious risk of tampering with digital and documentary evidence and of influencing witnesses connected with the NMC and Techinfy Solutions. His technical expertise and prior misuse of system access make such apprehension real and not illusory. The plea of ill-health and family hardship is also opposed on the ground that adequate medical facilities are available in judicial custody, and no life- threatening ailment has been shown. The filing of the charge sheet does not diminish the gravity of the offence, particularly as further investigation against other conspirators is still continuing. 12. In view of the nature and seriousness of the offence, the weight of evidence collected, and the potential risk of interference with the ongoing investigation, learned counsel for the CBI prays that the present bail application be rejected. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 14. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled 11 against the applicant, and the role attributed to him as emerging from the charge sheet, it is evident that the applicant, being the Project Head of M/s Technify Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was primarily entrusted with the technical maintenance of the NMC web portal and had no direct administrative or decision-making authority in the regulatory process. The record further reveals that there are in total thirty-six accused persons in the case, out of whom twelve have been charge-sheeted and eight were arrested. It is also noted that the charge sheet has already been filed against twelve accused persons, including the present applicant, and that further investigation, though continuing against other accused, does not appear to necessitate the applicant’s further custodial interrogation. 15. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 01.07.2025, and no further recovery is shown to be pending from him. The prosecution has cited as many as 136 witnesses, and therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The husband of the applicant is also in judicial custody in connection with the same alleged offence. Prolonged detention of the applicant, when the investigation in respect of him stands concluded, would not serve any useful purpose. 16. This Court is mindful that continued pre-trial incarceration, particularly after the filing of the charge sheet, must be justified by cogent reasons such as the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding. In the 12 present case, no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that the applicant has ever attempted to interfere with the investigation or that he poses any flight risk. The applicant is a permanent resident of New Delhi, has deep roots in society, and has no past criminal antecedents. 17. Considering the applicant’s medical condition, as evidenced by the documents on record showing hypertension and optic nerve impairment, and the serious illness of his aged father, coupled with the fact that the investigation qua the applicant is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time, 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. 18. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Raghavan Randeep Nair, involved in Crime No.RC2182025A0014 registered at Police Station CBI/AC-III/New Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2) of BNS, 2023 R/w Section 7, 7A, 8,9,10 12 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 66 & 72-A of the IT Act 2000 (As per Charge-sheet), 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 13 shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) 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 14 accordance with law. 19. 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