1 2025:CGHC:60967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9160 of 2025 Dr. Ashok D Shelke S/o Dnyano Aged About 45 Years R/o Qtr. No. 38, Doctors Staff Quarters, Brims Medical College, Bidar, Karnataka ...Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation (C.B.I.) Through Investigating Officer C B I, Ac-Iii, New Delhi ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra appeared through Video Conferencing with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate. For respondent/CBI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.12.2025 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 of 2025 registered VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.16 11:43:37 +0530 2 at Police Station CBI/AC-III/New Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and r/w Sections 7,7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, 1988. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is a team constituted by the National Medical Commission (NMC) was scheduled to conduct an inspection of Shri Ravatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Science and Research (SRIMSR). It is alleged that, at the behest of the Chairman of the said institute, Atul Kumar Tiwari and Mayur Raval illegally procured privileged and confidential information relating to the proposed inspection. For such illegal disclosure, the Chairman, with the assistance of D.P. Singh, Chancellor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, allegedly persuaded the members of the inspection team to furnish a favourable inspection report, for which illegal gratification was offered. It is further alleged that Mayur Raval demanded an amount of Rs.25-30 lakhs in consideration of disclosing confidential information pertaining to the inspection and directed Atul Kumar Tiwari to make necessary arrangements for the inspection scheduled on 30.06.2025. In lieu of the illegal gratification, official confidentiality was allegedly breached and the identities of the inspection team members were disclosed. It is also the prosecution case that the inspection team, consisting of four members, visited the institute and entered into a criminal conspiracy with Atul Kumar Tiwari to issue a favourable inspection report, pursuant to which certain amounts were allegedly paid to the members of the inspection team. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the alleged offences are not attracted against him; the entire prosecution case is false, baseless, and fabricated, relying on incorrect facts and alleged false seizure. The applicant was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation, AC-III, New Delhi, on 07.07.2025 in connection with the alleged offence punishable under Section 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023 read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the PC Act, 1988, and was remanded to judicial custody by the concerned Court. Despite his innocence, he continues to remain in judicial custody, and as the investigating agency has not sought further remand, it is evident that no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and keeping him behind bars would yield no fruitful result. The applicant has been implicated solely on account of his being a member of the inspection team, and the FIR itself contains no allegation that he accepted or received any bribe or conspired with other co-accused. While it was later alleged that a bribe of INR 5 lakhs was offered to the applicant and deposited in a bank account of a person known to him, the prosecuting agency has failed to establish any nexus between the applicant and that account, making his implication wholly based on a fabricated story. The applicant holds a respectable position, has no prior criminal antecedents, and as the CBI remand has concluded with no further request, there is no requirement for custodial 4 interrogation. The applicant further reserves the right to raise additional grounds during the course of argument. Moreover, the alleged offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and as the investigation and trial are likely to take considerable time, the applicant humbly prays for grant of regular bail. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused, namely Mayur Mahendrabhai Raval, Chaitra Madanahalli Sridhar, Raghavan Randeep Nair, and Atul Kumar Tiwari have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court, and one co-accused, namely Sathisha A, has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 17119 of 2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025, therefore the applicant humbly prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the CBI strongly opposes the grant of regular bail in the present case in view of the grave, well-organized, and multi-state corruption involving manipulation of medical college assessments under the National Medical Commission; the applicant was arrested strictly in accordance with due process of law after collection of substantial and cogent material establishing his active role in the conspiracy, including the demand, receipt, and distribution of illegal gratification for securing favourable assessment reports; the mere filing of the charge-sheet does not dilute the seriousness of the allegations, as further investigation is still continuing, and the 5 applicant’s continued custody is necessary considering the magnitude of the offence, his pivotal role in the conspiracy, and the real likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with electronic and documentary evidence; the plea that “bail is the rule” is misplaced in the present facts where prima facie material clearly demonstrates the applicant’s complicity, including acceptance of Rs55 lakhs through co-accused Sathisha A and distribution of Rs.16.62 lakhs to another accused; the applicant’s personal or familial circumstances are wholly irrelevant in cases involving serious corruption and abuse of public office; the allegations challenging the legality of search, seizure, and arrest are false and baseless, as all proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law and in the presence of independent witnesses; the evidence collected, including witness statements, digital records, call intercepts, and recovery proceedings, establishes the applicant’s direct involvement in the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in coordination with other accused persons; the attempt of the applicant to shift blame onto co-accused or question the CBI’s investigative discretion is misconceived, as the investigation is evidence-driven, and the facts showing receipt of bribe amounts at Raipur and subsequent sharing of Rs.16.62 lakhs with the husband of co-accused Dr. Chaitra M.S. stand duly corroborated by telephonic interceptions, witness testimonies, and lawful recovery proceedings, thereby disentitling the applicant from the discretionary relief of regular 6 bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that four identically situated co-accused persons namely Mayur Mahendrabhai Raval, Chaitra Madanahalli Sridhar, Raghavan Randeep Nair, and Atul Kumar Tiwari have already been granted regular bail by this Court, and further noting that one co-accused whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 6701 of 2025, though granted short-term bail for two months, preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 17119 of 2025 which was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2025, and also considering that the charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Dr. Ashok D Shelke, involved in CCrime No. RC2182025A0014 of 2025 registered at Police Station CBI/AC- III/New Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and r/w Sections 7,7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, 1988, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 7 (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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. (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 accordance with law. 8. 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 vaibhav