1 2026:CGHC:7323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1433 of 2026 Shashank Chopda S/o Shri Shantilal Chopda, Aged About 32 Years R/o Shop No. 35, Chopda Compound, Azad Ward Ganjpara Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Superintendent Of Police Economic Offence Wing/anti Corruption Bureau District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate along with Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 05/2025, registered at Police Station Economic OfÏce Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(C) of the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3159/2025, vide order dated 13.06.2025, on merits. Hence, the Second bail application. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that, a secret information was received to the Police Station, EOW/ACB, Raipur that in year-2021 under the T Scheme "Hamar-Lab" (At District level & at level of Community health Centre) the Public Health and Family Welfare Department had directed the Department to purchase necessary Equipment, Machines, etc. through Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd. (for short, the CGMSCL), acting on which CGMSCL purchased the same in month of March-April, 2023. The allegations are that the Director of Health Services, CGMSCL and their OfÏcers, without evaluating the budget and demand had placed the order of equipment, machines etc. disproportionately and the concerned OfÏcers in connivance with the other Companies while discharging their ofÏcial duties, have improperly and dishonestly performed public duties and committed criminal misconduct by entering into a criminal conspiracy with Mokshit Corporation, CB Corporation, Records and Medicare System, Shri Sharda Industries and others Companies, by purchasing the same at much higher price than the actual with an intention to cause profit to the Companies, and they have made unnecessary purchase of machines and reagents. Neither the availability of budget was ensured for the said purchase nor was any administrative approval obtained in this regard and in this whole exercise, a total loss of 3 approximately Rs. 411 crores has been caused to the State Government. An FIR against the ofÏcers of CGMSCL, Raipur and OfÏcers of Directorate of Health Services, Raipur, Mokshit Corporation, Ganj Para, Durg, CB Corporation, G.E. Road, Durg, Recorders and Medicare System, HSIIDC, Panchkula Harayan, Shri Sharda Industries, Dharsiwa, and six others were registered by the concerned police. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3159/2025 vide order dated 13.06.2025 on merits, however, a significant change in circumstances now warrants reconsideration. The applicant has been languishing in judicial custody since 28.01.2025, i.e., for about one year, the investigation qua him stands concluded, chargesheet has already been filed on 25.04.2025, and no further custodial interrogation has ever been sought or shown to be necessary. Trial has not commenced and, considering the voluminous chargesheet (about 18,000 pages) and 77 cited witnesses, its early conclusion is unlikely, rendering continued incarceration violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The entire evidence against the applicant is documentary and already in possession of the investigating agency, eliminating any possibility of tampering or influencing witnesses. The applicant has clean antecedents, deep roots in society, is not a flight risk, and undertakes to abide by all conditions. His continued detention has become punitive rather than preventive, especially when even supplementary investigation has not progressed. He is also 4 suffering from serious neurological and spinal ailments requiring regular physiotherapy and medical care which is not being adequately provided in custody. The prosecution case arises out of contractual and payment disputes relating to government supplies, for which substantial dues of approximately Rs. 338 crores remain unpaid to the company, indicating a civil dispute given a criminal colour. In these circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention serves no useful purpose and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/non-applicant, has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the present case reveals a well- planned economic offence causing wrongful loss of about ₹411 Crores to the State exchequer. It is contended that reagents and medical equipment were procured by CGMSCL without following established government procedures, without proper assessment of institutional requirement, storage facilities, power supply, cold chain arrangements or budget approval. The requirement was allegedly determined through a mere table-top exercise without adopting the standard DPDMIS model or any institution-wise scientific analysis, resulting in procurement far in excess of actual need. Purchase orders for the entire quantity were issued within a short span of 26– 27 days despite absence of storage infrastructure and near-expiry reagents were supplied at highly inflated rates. It is further alleged that the applicant is the mastermind of a cartel, who influenced ofÏcials to tailor tender conditions, used bogus billing, got technical 5 objections wrongly cleared and supplied products manufactured by other companies. The tender specifications were allegedly designed to suit a particular company, leading to complaints from other bidders. Investigation against other ofÏcials is still ongoing, several co-accused public servants have been arrested and there exists a strong likelihood that the applicant, if released, may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. It is also pointed out that the applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 3159/2025 vide order dated 13.06.2025, and therefore he does not deserve the indulgence of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. It is not in dispute that the first bail application of the present applicant was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 3159/2025 vide order dated 13.06.2025, after elaborate consideration of the nature of allegations, magnitude of financial loss, material collected during investigation and the role attributed to the applicant. The said order was carried in challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9284/2025, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2025. Thus, the findings recorded earlier regarding the gravity of offence, prima facie material and the applicant’s role have attained finality at this stage. 8. The only new ground pressed in the present (second) bail application is that the applicant is in custody since 28.01.2025 and the trial has not yet commenced. However, mere period of 6 incarceration, by itself, cannot be treated as a change in circumstance so as to dilute the earlier findings, particularly in a case of this magnitude involving alleged economic offence of about ₹411 Crores. It also transpires that four co-accused persons have been arrested after rejection of the earlier bail application and further investigation in respect of other accused persons and the larger conspiracy is still in progress. 9. While considering the prayer for bail, the Court cannot lose sight of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, wherein economic offences were held to be committed with deliberate design affecting the community at large; in State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishnan Dattatreya Kumbhar, recognizing the serious societal impact of corruption; and in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, wherein it was held that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed seriously, keeping in mind the nature of accusation, magnitude of loss and larger public interest. The earlier order of this Court has already recorded prima facie satisfaction regarding the applicant’s alleged central role in a well-orchestrated conspiracy causing huge loss to the State exchequer and affecting public health infrastructure. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of accusation, the magnitude of alleged loss, the ongoing investigation qua other accused, the possibility of influence in a case involving ofÏcial connivance and in absence of any substantial change in circumstance except the period of custody, this Court is 7 of the considered view that no new ground is made out for taking a different view from that already taken earlier and afÏrmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the present (second) bail application also deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 11. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Shashank Chopda involved in Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station, Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, rejected at this stage. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 13. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal