1 2026:CGHC:373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9796 of 2025 Vishal Anand S/o Shri Anand Kumar Jha Aged About 51 Years Presently Chief Engineer/ Rsw, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, R/o V-17, Near Bharat Mata School, Officers Railway Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Superintendent Of Police, Central Bureau Of Investigation, Ac-Ii, New Delhi, Camp At Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate, For Respondent/CBI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate (through VC) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.06 15:18:49 +0530 2 arrested in connection with Crime No. RC2172025A0010 registered at Police Station : CBI/AC-II/New Delhi (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9,10 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the BNS 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6635 of 2025. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that based on allegedly reliable information received by the respondent - CBI, it was revealed that certain officials of the South-East Central Railway (for short, the SECR) were allegedly involved in corrupt and illegal activities in collusion with M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., a company engaged in the business of construction. The prosecution further alleges that between 01.01.2018 and 25.04.2025, SECR awarded 44 work contracts to M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. Further case of the prosecution is that the applicant, Vishal Anand, in his capacity as Chief Engineer/RSW, SECR was actively involved as the Convenor of the Tender Committee concerning Tender No. Engg-CTE-BSP- 08-2024-25. Upon completion of the tender process through e- tendering and reverse auction, a work order was issued in favour of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. for the execution of safety fencing with gates and a pedestrian subway from KM 618.000 to KM 722.000 of the BSP-JSG section within the Bilaspur Division. The 3 awarded work could not be executed due to the absence of the requisite cable clearance from the S&T Department. In order to obtain or expedite such clearance, co-accused Sushil Jhajharia, the Managing Director of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., approached the applicant to seek his influence and intervention with the S&T Department to facilitate the Clearance process. It is further alleged that on 21.04.2025, a meeting reportedly took place between the applicant and co-accused Sushil majharia in the applicant's office cabin, followed by another meeting later at evening. During these meetings, a mutual understanding was arrived whereby a bribe amount of Rs.31,93,500/- was to be paid to the icant in lieu of facilitating the pending clearance from the S&T Department. Pursuant to this alleged agreement, co- accused Manoj Pathak, an employee of M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. was allegedly instructed to deliver the said amount to the applicant's father, Anand Kumar Jha, and his brother, Kunal Anand, at Ranchi on 25.04.2025. The respondent agency laid a trap and recovered the said amount from the applicant's said relatives. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and has been falsely implicated in the present case despite being wholly innocent. The applicant is a distinguished officer of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE, 2000 batch) who joined the Indian Railways on 03.09.2001 and has rendered 4 nearly 25 years of continuous, unblemished, meritorious and incident-free service, having held several important and responsible positions including Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer/Track Machine, Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Senior Divisional Engineer, and Chief Project Manager on deputation with RVNL, and is presently posted as Chief Engineer/RSW, SECR. The allegations levelled against him are false, misconceived and unsupported by any credible or legally admissible material. The investigation against the applicant stands concluded and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 23.06.2025; notably, the charge-sheet itself clarifies that further investigation is contemplated only against other persons and not against the present applicant, thereby conclusively establishing that no further investigation is pending insofar as he is concerned, eliminating any possibility of tampering with evidence. The very foundation of the prosecution case is flawed, as the applicant had no authority, jurisdiction or functional control over the Signal & Telecommunication (S&T) Department, which is an independent department headed by its own Principal Head of Department reporting directly to the General Manager, and S&T clearances are issued exclusively by the competent S&T authorities at the divisional level. The charge-sheet as well as the statements of prosecution witnesses unequivocally establish that the applicant, being part of the Civil Engineering Department, could neither influence nor grant S&T clearances, and in fact no 5 such clearance was ever granted. The applicant’s role in the tender process was purely limited, procedural and non- discretionary, as he merely acted as Convenor of a three- member Tender Committee, with the final decision resting solely with the designated Accepting Authority, namely the Principal Chief Engineer. The tender was awarded through a transparent, automated e-tendering process followed by a reverse auction on the IREPS platform, leaving no scope for manipulation, favoritism or undue influence, and the prosecution has failed to point out any deviation from prescribed procedures. Crucially, there is a complete absence of evidence to establish the essential ingredients of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as there is no proof of demand or acceptance of any illegal gratification by the applicant, no trap proceedings were conducted against him, no recovery of tainted money was made from his person or premises, no chemical test was conducted, and he was arrested separately in a different State, far away from the alleged place of recovery. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the alleged recovery from private individuals, without any evidence of nexus, instruction or conscious acceptance by the applicant, fatally undermines the prosecution case. The prosecution case is further vitiated by serious legal infirmities, including violation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for want of prior approval before initiating inquiry, pendency of mandatory 6 sanction under Section 19 of the Act which legally bars cognizance and trial, and reliance on allegedly illegal telephonic interceptions conducted in violation of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and settled constitutional safeguards. There are also material inconsistencies in the prosecution story, including an unexplained discrepancy in the alleged bribe amount, which strikes at the root of the case. The shifting and contradictory prosecution theory, initially alleging bribe for award of contract and later changing it to S&T clearance despite the applicant having no role therein, clearly reflects mala fide intent and abuse of process. The applicant has already undergone prolonged pre- trial incarceration since 25.04.2025 for offences carrying a maximum punishment of seven years, while the trial cannot commence due to absence of sanction, making continued detention punitive, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The applicant satisfies the well-established triple test for grant of bail, as he poses no flight risk, cannot tamper with evidence, and cannot influence witnesses, all of whom are official witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the similarly placed co-accused Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 13167 of 2025 vide order dated 28.10.2025, thereby entitling the present applicant to the benefit of bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is suffering from 7 serious medical ailments while in judicial custody, which has further aggravated the hardship caused by his continued incarceration. In view of the settled principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, coupled with the presumption of innocence, prolonged pre-trial detention, absence of any incriminating evidence, completion of investigation, parity with co-accused, and serious legal infirmities in the prosecution case, the applicant most respectfully submits that he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI, Mr. Gopa Kumar, opposes the bail application, submitting that the instant case was registered by CBI, AC-II Branch, New Delhi on 25.04.2025 on source information for serious offences under the BNS, 2023 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving a large-scale corruption conspiracy between the present applicant, a senior Railway Official, and representatives of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. It is alleged that the applicant abused his official position to obtain illegal gratification for clearing bills and awarding lucrative railway contracts. Pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy, a bribe amount of approximately Rs. 32 lakhs was delivered through co- accused Manoj Pathak and was recovered during a successful CBI trap from the possession of the applicant’s brother, Kunal Anand, at Ranchi, in the presence of independent witnesses. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and recoveries of substantial cash and valuables have been made from the 8 applicant and co-accused, indicating proceeds of corruption. It is further submitted that recorded telephonic conversations, witness statements, and documentary evidence prima facie establish the applicant’s active role in the conspiracy. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the influential position of the applicant, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the fact that further investigation into the larger conspiracy is still underway, the respondent strongly contends that the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and prays for rejection of the bail application. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the present applicant, and the fact that the similarly placed co-accused, namely Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 13167 of 2025 vide order dated 28.10.2025, this Court finds that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is further noted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and, therefore, the investigation stands concluded. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.04.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the 9 present case. 10. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Vishal Anand, involved in Crime No. RC2172025A0010 registered at Police Station : CBI/AC-II/New Delhi (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9,10 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on 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 him 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 10 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. 11. 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