1 2026:CGHC:5291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 890 of 2026 Deepak Bandhe S/o Shankar Lal Bandhe Aged About 38 Years R/o Plot No. 7, Chandra Nagar, Umarpoti, Tehsil- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Addl. Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing/anti Corruption Bureau, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station – Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(a), 13(2) and Section 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. As per the prosecution case, an FIR bearing No. 05/2025 dated 22.01.2025 was registered by the respondent on the basis of secret information received. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows: that ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:23:37 +0530 2 the Director of Health Services and CGMSC, being public servants, while discharging their ofÏcial duties, allegedly improperly and dishonestly performed their 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. It is alleged that, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they fraudulently misappropriated the property under their control and made unnecessary purchases of machines and reagents. It is further alleged that neither the availability of budget was ensured nor administrative approval was obtained for the said purchases. Without bringing the matter to the notice of the Government, a liability of approximately Rs. 411 crore was allegedly created upon the Government. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the present applicant. The allegation against the present applicant is that he completed the agreement proceedings only on the basis of demand made by the concerned District, and thereafter the Department purchased CBC Machines worth Rs. 38.33 crore, allegedly without issuing any NIT/tender. Another allegation levelled against the present applicant is that he did not place or produce the technical specifications before the concerned committee and obtained signatures on the respective documents on personal grounds. It is alleged that the present applicant skipped various mandatory procedures required for the procurement of the said goods. It is further alleged in the FIR as well as in the final report that the present applicant acted at the instance of the specification team for the purchase of machineries under the “Hamar Lab Yojana”, and in order to provide unlawful benefit to Mokshit Corporation, he neither placed relevant documents nor the technical specifications of the machines before the concerned committee, thereby preventing the committee from holding 3 any general discussion on the specifications. It is also alleged that, in all the above transactions, the present applicant obtained a commission of 0.2% from the main accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that for the purchase of machinery under the “Hamar Lab Yojana”, a specification team was constituted, and the said team was controlled by the Department of Health Services (DHS). CGMSE was not the controlling authority of the said specification team. The prosecution has not made any responsible member of the Department of Health Services an accused. It is totally incorrect to allege that the present applicant controlled the specification team, as it has already been stated that the said team was controlled by DHS and not by CGMSE. Moreover, the present applicant is not a permanent employee of CGMSE. He further submits that all the relevant machines were purchased by CGMSE after complete verification, and the specific machines were required by the concerned district hospitals. On the basis of such specific demands, the machines were purchased by CGMSE. In the said policy decision, the present applicant had no role to play. The present applicant is not even a permanent employee of CGMSE and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the main work of the present applicant was valuation of Cover-A and Cover-B, and he was only present as a representative in CGMSE meetings. In Contract No./NIT No. 182, the present applicant has not signed for the purchase of the above tender, nor was he present in the said process. In respect of the purchase of the CBC machine, the said machine was demanded by the OfÏce of the Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer, District Durg, vide letter No. /2020/910 Durg dated 19.10.2020. The said machine was required 4 for prevention and control of the COVID-19 virus. On the basis of the said demand letter, the machine bearing Model No. CHANDA9904 was purchased as specifically demanded by the OfÏce of CMHO, Durg, and the said machine was supplied by the main accused corporation. Therefore, in the purchase of the said machine, the present applicant had no role to play. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that as per allegation No. 3 against the present applicant, it is alleged that he bypassed various rules for the purchase of the above machinery and did not invite any tender, which is totally baseless. The tenders were approved by CGMSE, which has its own team for purchasing goods as per the “C.G. Bhandar Grah Niyam”. The present applicant had no role in the said process. As per allegation No. 4, the present applicant is stated to be liable for justification proceedings, whereas it is evident that prior to the said justification process, the applicant had already been transferred and posted in District Koriya. However, while filing the charge-sheet, no proper investigation has been conducted, and the present applicant has been falsely implicated. Upon perusal of the entire charge-sheet, it is evident that there is no documentary evidence to show that the applicant received any commission of 0.2% in any of the alleged transactions. The applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation and there is no specific evidence against him; therefore, he is entitled to be granted bail. He also submits that the present applicant is not responsible for specification or observation of new models, as the same is the work of skilled and technical experts, and the applicant had no role in the said process. He submits that on 26.12.2016, the applicant joined his service as a Biomedical Engineer (contractual) in the ofÏce of the Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer and served thereafter. Subsequently, he was posted in 5 the ofÏce of CGMSCL till 27.01.2022, and thereafter, on 28.01.2022, he was relieved and posted in the ofÏce of CMHO, District Koriya. Subsequently, he was again posted in the ofÏce of CGMSC. The applicant did not actively participate in any tender process; therefore, he is seeking bail in the present case. He submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed, consisting of approximately 3000 pages, and the trial is likely to take a considerable period for its final adjudication and the applicant has been in jail since 28.01.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the allegations against him are that he processed the agreement proceedings on the basis of the demand raised by the concerned District, pursuant to which CBC Machines worth Rs. 38.33 crore were purchased allegedly without issuance of any NIT/tender. It is further alleged that he did not place the technical specifications before the concerned committee, obtained signatures on documents on personal grounds, and bypassed certain mandatory procurement procedures. As per the FIR and the final report, the applicant is stated to have acted at the instance of the specification team under the “Hamar Lab Yojana” and allegedly withheld relevant documents and specifications from the committee, thereby preventing deliberation and extending undue benefit to Mokshit Corporation. It is also alleged that he received a commission of 0.2% from the main accused in the said transactions. He further submits that the bail applications of other co-accused persons, namely Basant Kaushik and Dr. Anil Parsai, have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5110 of 2025 and MCRC No. 6444 of 2025 vide order dated 15.09.2025. 6 The anticipatory bail application of another co-accused, namely Shanti Lal Chopda, in MCRCA No. 1973 of 2025 was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026. Therefore, the present bail application is also liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the bail of other co-accused persons, namely, Basant Kaushik and Dr. Anil Parsai, have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5110 of 2025 and MCRC No. 6444 of 2025 vide order dated 15.09.2025. The anticipatory bail application of another co-accused, namely Shanti Lal Chopda, in MCRCA No. 1973 of 2025 was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Deepak Bandhe, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station – Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(a), 13(2) and Section 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10.OfÏce 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 Abhishek