1 2025:CGHC:52793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8371 of 2025 Atul Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 51 Years S/o Late Kailash Chandra Tiwari R/o H.No. 169, Peepal Block, C.G Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation CBI/ AC-III, New Delhi, Through The Superintendent Of Police/ Deputy Superintendent Of Police ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Ambast and Mr. Ravi Singh Patel, 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 [RC14(A)/2025] registered at Police Station CBI/AC-III, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.10.30 18:32:14 +0530 2 (for short, ‘BNS’), Sections 7, 7A (subsequently added while filing charge sheet) 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) (as amended in 2018), Section 66 and 72-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’) (subsequently added while filing charge sheet). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present FIR No. RC2182025A0014 dated 30.06.2025 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch (AC-III), New Delhi, for offences punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The FIR was registered on the basis of source information alleging a large-scale conspiracy involving officials of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), members of the National Medical Commission (NMC), intermediaries, and representatives of various private medical colleges across the country. It was alleged that these individuals, acting in concert, manipulated statutory inspections, leaked confidential information, and obtained undue regulatory favours from the NMC in exchange for illegal gratification. 3. Pursuant to the said FIR, on 30.06.2025, a search was conducted by the respondent agency at the applicant’s residential premises, during which no incriminating material was found. However, two mobile phones belonging to the applicant were seized—(i) a Vivo phone bearing IMEI Nos. 861556046604897 and 3 861556046604889 linked to mobile number 9424228728, and (ii) an iPhone 12 Pro bearing IMEI Nos. 353073111609152 and 353073111604209 linked to mobile number 7222910412. These devices have remained in CBI custody since seizure, as recorded in the search and seizure memo dated 30.06.2025. The applicant asserts that the investigating agency may have tampered with these devices and that any evidence derived therefrom should be deemed unreliable and inadmissible in law. 4. It is further alleged in the FIR that, at the instance of the Chairman of Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and in collusion with one Shri Mayur Raval, Registrar, Geetanjali University, Udaipur, confidential and advance information regarding a forthcoming official inspection was sought to be procured unlawfully. It is also alleged that Shri Ravi Shankar Ji Maharaj, Chairman of SRIMSR, sought the assistance of Shri D.P. Singh, Chancellor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, to persuade members of the inspection team to submit a favourable inspection report in lieu of bribe. The source is stated to have revealed that Shri Raval demanded an illegal gratification of ₹25–30 lakhs in exchange for disclosing inspection-related information, and that the inspection team members of NMC had conspired to issue a favourable report upon receipt of such gratification. 5. Following investigation, the applicant was arrested on 01.07.2025; however, it is alleged that he was unlawfully detained from 4 30.06.2025, thereby violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The applicant has further alleged that during this illegal detention, he was subjected to coercion and compelled to sign statements against his will. The CBI thereafter filed a charge sheet on 28.08.2025 before the Learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, New Delhi, invoking offences under Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as Sections 66 and 72-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 6. The prosecution relies primarily on call interception records and digital evidence to allege the applicant’s involvement; however, no recovery of cash or incriminating material has been made from him. The applicant’s name appears only due to his official position as Director of SRIMSR and alleged professional association with co-accused individuals. The investigation, as per the applicant, is premeditated and mala fide, lacking direct or corroborative evidence of any demand, acceptance, or facilitation of illegal gratification. The applicant further asserts that he has been falsely implicated owing to his role in managing a charitable medical institution providing free healthcare to the underprivileged, which has invited resentment from competing entities. 7. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Mr. Ravi Singh Patel, appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation 5 (CBI) under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). It is contended that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen of impeccable antecedents and is presently serving as the Director of Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur. The entire case of the prosecution, it is submitted, is based on conjectures, surmises, and general allegations without any specific or direct evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offences. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has no personal role in any alleged bribery or illegal gratification transactions, nor has any incriminating material, document, or recovery been made from his possession. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the charge sheet has already been filed against twelve accused persons, including the applicant, and the investigation, insofar as the applicant is concerned, stands concluded. Therefore, his further custodial detention serves no fruitful purpose. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.07.2025, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also argued that the applicant satisfies the well-settled “triple test” for the grant of bail—he is neither a flight risk nor in a position to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. He is a permanent resident of Raipur, having strong family, social, and professional ties within the jurisdiction of 6 this Court, and undertakes to cooperate fully with the ongoing proceedings. 9. Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel has further contended that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. The applicant’s continued detention, despite the filing of the charge sheet and absence of any recovery or direct involvement, amounts to pre-trial punishment, contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, prayed that, considering the applicant’s clean antecedents, health condition, and the settled principles governing bail, this Court may be pleased to enlarge him on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed a large-scale criminal conspiracy involving public officials associated with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, and the National Medical Commission (NMC), New Delhi, who, in collusion with intermediaries and representatives of various private medical colleges across the country, indulged in acts of corruption, abuse of official position, and willful misconduct for obtaining undue 7 pecuniary advantage. It is further submitted that the said public officials and intermediaries facilitated unauthorized access to, and unlawful duplication and dissemination of, confidential and sensitive documents pertaining to the regulatory status and inspection processes of medical colleges. The investigation has further revealed that these individuals manipulated the statutory inspection process conducted by the NMC by pre-emptively disclosing the inspection schedules and the names of assessors to concerned medical colleges, much before official communication, thereby enabling such institutions to fraudulently prepare and present compliance. 11. Mr. Kumar submitted that this advance disclosure allowed the medical colleges to arrange proxy or “ghost” faculty, fictitious patients, and other fraudulent measures to project compliance with regulatory requirements. Such acts were committed in exchange for illegal gratification and other undue advantages, thereby seriously undermining the sanctity of the national regulatory framework for medical education and compromising public health standards across the country. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that several public officials from the Ministry, including Ms. Poonam Meena, Shri Dharamvir, Shri Piyush Malyan (Section Officer), Shri Anup Vaiswal, Shri Rahul Srivastava, and Shri Chandan Kumar, were found to be involved in the unauthorized and illegal dissemination of sensitive and classified information relating to the inspection, renewal, and 8 issuance of Letters of Approval (LoA) to various medical colleges in exchange for bribes. These officials misused their access to internal files and even took photographs of confidential notings and remarks made by senior officers, which were thereafter shared with private individuals and representatives of medical institutions through personal mobile devices. 12. Mr. Kumar also submitted that the investigation has revealed the role of several intermediaries and medical college representatives who were recipients of such confidential information, including Dr. Virendra Kumar, Ms. Manisha Joshi, Shri Suresh Singh Bhadoria (Chairman, Index Medical College, Indore), Shri Udit Narain, Dr. Joshy Mathew, and Shri Mayur Raval (Registrar, Geetanjali University, Udaipur). It was found that large sums of bribe money were collected and routed through hawala channels to senior officials of the NMC in consideration of granting favourable inspection reports and regulatory approvals. It is further submitted that a trap was laid during the course of investigation, resulting in the recovery of ₹55 lakhs of bribe money in the presence of independent witnesses. Out of this, ₹16.62 lakhs were recovered from the possession of the husband of co-accused Dr. Chaitra M.S., and ₹38.38 lakhs were recovered from Shri Sathisha A., an associate of Dr. Manjappa C.N. The investigation has established that the bribe amount was collected and arranged under the directions of the present applicant, Shri Atul Kumar Tiwari, Director of Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences 9 and Research (SRIMSR), Raipur. 13. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the applicant played a central role in procuring advance confidential information relating to the NMC inspection, arranging ghost faculty and fake patients, and coordinating the delivery of bribe amounts to the members of the inspection team. The trap and subsequent recovery, coupled with intercepted communications, digital records, and witness statements, clearly establish the applicant’s active participation in the criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that a comprehensive charge sheet dated 28.08.2025 has been filed before the learned Special Judge (CBI Cases), Raipur, against twelve accused persons, including the present applicant, under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Sections 66 and 72-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is further stated that the investigation is still continuing to identify other officials and intermediaries involved in the broader conspiracy. He contended that given the gravity and magnitude of the offence, the influential position of the applicant, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses or evidence, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. It is emphasized that the offences are not only of serious economic nature but also strike at the very foundation of the integrity and transparency of the national medical regulatory system. Therefore, his release at this stage 10 would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and is not in the interest of justice. 14. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 15. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the specific role attributed to him as reflected in the charge sheet, it appears that the investigation, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, stands substantially concluded. The charge sheet has already been filed against twelve accused persons, including the applicant, before the competent court. The record further reveals that there are, in all, thirty-six accused persons in the case, out of whom twelve have been charge-sheeted and eight were arrested during the course of investigation. Although further investigation is stated to be continuing against certain other co-accused, the same does not appear to necessitate the applicant’s further custodial interrogation. 16. It is also noted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 01.07.2025. The prosecution has cited as many as 136 witnesses, and considering the large number of accused persons and the voluminous nature of the documentary and digital evidence proposed to be relied upon, it is apparent that the trial is likely to take a considerable length of time for its completion. 11 Prolonged detention of the applicant, when the investigation against him stands concluded and the charge sheet has already been filed, would not serve any useful purpose and would, in effect, amount to pre-trial incarceration. 17. Having regard to these considerations, the stage of the proceedings, the completion of investigation insofar as the applicant is concerned, and the personal and family circumstances noted above, 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 and to safeguard the fair conduct of the proceedings. 18. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Atul Kumar Tiwari, involved in Crime No.RC2182025A0014 [RC14(A)/2025] registered at Police Station CBI/AC-III, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 7, 7A (subsequently added while filing charge sheet) 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (as amended in 2018), Section 66 and 72-A of IT Act, 2000 (subsequently added while filing 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 12 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 13 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