1 2025:CGHC:52796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6658 of 2025 Chaitra Madanahalli Sridhar D/o Shri Sridhar Madanahalli Narasimaish Aged About 43 Years R/o No. 21, Nesara 18th Cross, Kanaka Nagar, RT Nagar (Wrongly Mentioned As Nagpur In Annexure A/1) Bengaluru 560032, Official Address- Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Medical College And Research Institute, Lady Curzon Road, Shivaji Nagar, Tasker Nagar, Bengaluru 560032 ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (C.B.I.) Through IO, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.RC2182025A0014 registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) Through: IO, CBI, GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.10.30 18:32:13 +0530 2 AC-III, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), and Sections 7, 8, 9,10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, ‘PC Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on the basis of reliable source information, it came to the notice of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that certain public officials associated with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, and the National Medical Commission (NMC), in criminal conspiracy with certain intermediaries and representatives of various private medical colleges across the country, were indulging in large-scale acts of corruption, abuse of official position, and deliberate misconduct. It is alleged that these individuals facilitated unauthorised access to, and unlawful duplication and dissemination of, confidential files and sensitive information relating to the regulatory status and internal processing of several medical colleges within the Ministry and the NMC. 3. The CBI has further alleged that the accused persons named in the FIR were involved in manipulating the statutory inspection process conducted by the NMC by disclosing, in advance, the proposed inspection schedules and the identities of the designated assessors to the concerned medical institutions. Such advance disclosure allegedly enabled the medical colleges to make fraudulent preparations to project compliance with statutory 3 requirements. These fraudulent practices reportedly included bribing of assessors to secure favourable inspection reports, deployment of non-existent or proxy faculty members (“ghost faculty”), admission of fictitious patients to inflate clinical data, and tampering with biometric attendance records to create false impressions of faculty presence—all in exchange for monetary and other unlawful gratifications. 4. In the present case, it is alleged that on 30.06.2025, the husband of the applicant, Mr. Ravichandra K, was apprehended by officers of the CBI at Bengaluru during an alleged exchange of bribe money amounting to ₹16.62 lakhs. The prosecution claims that the applicant, Dr. Chaitra M.S., who was serving as a member of the NMC inspection team, had deputed her husband, co-accused Ravichandra K, to collect the said bribe from Dr. Manjappa C.N., another NMC member, through one Mr. Satish alias Sathisha A at Bengaluru. The bribe amount was allegedly intended to secure a favourable inspection report for Shri Ravaputra Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur, at the behest of its Chairman, Shri Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj, in criminal collusion with co-accused Mr. Mayur Rawal and others. 5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no seizure has been made from 4 the applicant, and the prosecution has failed to establish any connection between her and the alleged acceptance of a bribe. Her residential premises were searched by the CBI on 01.07.2025, but no incriminating material was recovered. The applicant, a lady, has been in custody since 01.07.2025. She was not provided with a copy of the FIR or arrest memo prior to being produced before the learned Special Judge (CBI Cases), Raipur, nor was she informed of the grounds of arrest, thereby violating her legal and constitutional rights. 6. Mr. Paranjpe further submits that the applicant is serving as Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, and was appointed by the NMC as an independent investigator for inspection of Shri Ravaputra Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur. She duly conducted the inspection with three other members on 30.06.2025, thereafter was arrested on 01.07.2025 without any valid basis. There is no evidence of any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the applicant. Even taking the prosecution case at face value, no offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. Reliance is placed on P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152, which holds that without proof of demand, mere possession or recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 5 7. It is further submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that the charge sheet has been filed against twelve accused persons, eight of whom have been arrested, and hence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer necessary. The applicant’s 14-year-old son is presently staying with a housemaid, as both parents are in custody, causing severe emotional and educational hardship. The welfare of a minor child has been recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a paramount consideration. The allegations under Section 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the PC Act are vague and general, without any specific attribution of role to the applicant. The trial is likely to take considerable time, and her prolonged incarceration would amount to punishment before conviction. Reliance is placed on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Hussainara Khatoon (1980) 1 SCC 93, and State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that deprivation of liberty pending trial must be avoided unless necessary, and prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Mr. Paranjpe lastly submitted that the applicant, a 43-year-old government servant suffering from anxiety disorder, is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. She undertakes to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may kindly grant bail to the 6 applicant, as the investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed, and her further detention is unwarranted. 9. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI, assisted by Mr. Himanshu Pandey, submits that a regular case bearing No. RC2182025A0014, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi, dated 30.06.2025, has been registered under Section 61(2) of the BNS read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act (as amended in 2018), against several officials of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the National Medical Commission (NMC), and intermediaries of various private medical colleges across the country. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed a large-scale conspiracy involving senior public officials and private individuals engaged in unauthorised dissemination of confidential information, manipulation of NMC inspections, and acceptance of illegal gratification in exchange for granting undue regulatory favours to private medical colleges. 10. Mr. Kumar further submits that, in the present case, the applicant, Dr. Chaitra M.S., was a member of the inspection team deputed to inspect Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur. The inspection team members, including the applicant, were found to have conspired with co- accused Shri Mayur Raval and Shri Atul Kumar Tiwari to secure a favourable inspection report in lieu of a bribe of ₹55 lakhs. The telephonic intercepts and digital evidence clearly establish that co- accused Dr. Manjappa C.N. had informed the applicant that her 7 share of the bribe would be delivered through her husband, Shri Ravichandra K., or by co-accused Sathisha A. Pursuant to this conspiracy, ₹16.62 lakhs, being the applicant’s share, was recovered from Ravichandra K., while the remaining ₹38.38 lakhs was recovered from Sathisha A., both apprehended in a trap operation at Bangalore. 11. Mr. Kumar contends that the applicant’s direct complicity is corroborated by intercepted communications, recovery of the bribe amount, and the deliberately diluted inspection report submitted by the NMC team, causing wrongful gain to SRIMSR. The applicant’s plea of false implication is wholly untenable. It is submitted that the offence is grave and systemic, involving abuse of public office at the national regulatory level, undermining public trust and the integrity of medical education standards. Given the gravity of the offence, possibility of influencing witnesses, and the applicant’s position in the medical establishment, grant of bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation. 12. Lastly, Mr. Kumar submits that the charge sheet has already been filed against twelve accused persons, including the applicant, while further investigation is continuing under Section 173(8) CrPC. The applicant’s release may impede or influence the ongoing inquiry relating to the wider conspiracy. In view of the serious nature of allegations, strong prima facie evidence, and recovery of bribe amount linked to the applicant, it is prayed that this Court may reject the bail application of Dr. Chaitra M.S. 8 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the role attributed to the applicant, it appears that the investigation in respect of the present applicant has been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed. The record 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. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.07.2025, and no further custodial interrogation is warranted. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant is a lady, serving as an Associate Professor in a Government Medical College, and is the mother of a minor son aged about 14 years, who is presently left without parental care due to the incarceration of both parents, her husband also being in judicial custody in connection with the same offence. 15. Having regard to the fact that the trial is yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, considering that there are as many as 136 prosecution witnesses, the continued pre-trial detention of the applicant would cause undue hardship to her and her family. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence if released on bail. 16. In view of the foregoing considerations, and keeping in mind the 9 settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, 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 her presence during trial. 17. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Chaitra Madanahalli Sridhar, involved in Crime No.RC2182025A0014 registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) Through: IO, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under sections 7,8,9,10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988., be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 10 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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 her in accordance with law. 18. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Gouri/Anu