1 2025:CGHC:60966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8918 of 2025 Dr. Manjappa C.N S/o Shri Narsimhegowda Aged About 51 Years R/o No. 74, Ff2, Elegant Akshaya, 4th Cross, Ramarao Layout, Kathriguppe, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore (Karnataka) 560085 ...Applicant versus Central Bureau Investigation (CBI), Ac-Iii, New Delhi, Through The Investigation Officer ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. S.K. Shrivastava along with Mr. Shashank 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 at Police Station CBI/AC-III/New Delhi for the offence punishable VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.16 11:43:35 +0530 2 under Sections 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and r/w Sections 7,7a, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, 1988. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an agreement was arrived at between Dr. Chaitra and Dr. Manjappa that Dr. Chaitra's husband, Mr. Ravichandra K., would go to the residence of the present applicant/accused for the receipt of the bribe amount. It is alleged by the CBI that about 10:10 PM on 30.06.2025, Shri Ravichandra K, on instructions from Dr. Chaitra, allegedly reached the residential premises of the present applicant and was receiving Rs.16.62 lakhs, which was portrayed as bribe money. The residential premise of the applicant was allegedly searched, resulting in the recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs.38.38 lakhs. The applicant and Mr. Ravichandra K were apprehended by CBI officials on 01.07.2025 and brought to the CBI office in Bengaluru, where they were subsequently arrested. The applicant was arrested at 11 AM on 01.07.2025 and was produced before the Court of Ld. ACMM, CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, at about 3:30 PM, who granted transit remand of the accused person to the investigating officer for their production before the court of Special Judge (CBI Cases), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that the applicant/accused, aged about 50 years, a married man with dependent family members, is a law-abiding citizen with deep roots in society and 3 has no prior criminal antecedents except the present FIR, and is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with no likelihood of absconding; the applicant is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no recovery whatsoever has been made from him either during searches or during police remand, no further custodial interrogation was sought, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and nothing remains to be recovered at his instance; the applicant has been in continuous custody since 02.07.2025, and prolonged incarceration would amount to an unwarranted violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, coupled with the presumption of innocence, squarely apply to the present case, there is no material to establish any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, no possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and all material evidence is already in the custody of the prosecution; notably, four 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, thereby entitling the applicant to bail on the principle of parity; the applicant undertakes to cooperate fully with the trial and to abide by all conditions that may be imposed 4 by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 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 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 5 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 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 gravity of the offence, the nature allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that four identically situated co-accused 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 6 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. Manjappa C.N, involved in Crime 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 7,7a, 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:- (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 7 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