1 2026:CGHC:22306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3074 of 2026 Dr. Anil Parsai S/o Late Arvind Kumar Parsai Aged About 64 Years R/o Lig 62-63, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Superintendent Of Police, Economic Offences Wing/anti- Corruption Bureau, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appears along with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Mr. Anunay Shrivastava and Mr. Devabrat Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.05.2026 1. This is the Second 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 on ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.13 19:12:29 +0530 2 21.03.2025 in connection with Crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station – EOW/ACB, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, IPC and 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(C ), Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant being M.Cr.C. No. 6444/2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025, on merits. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of secret information received at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, FIR No.05/2025 dated 22.01.2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the IPC and Sections 13(1), 13(2) and 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is alleged that under the “Hamar Lab” Scheme, the Directorate of Health Services issued a demand letter to Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd. (CGMSCL) for procurement of medical equipment and reagents, pursuant to which CGMSCL floated Tender No.182/EQP/CGMSCL/2022-23 dated 26.08.2022, wherein Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. was declared as the L-1 bidder. The prosecution alleges that the ofÏcers of the Directorate of Health Services and CGMSCL 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd. by incorporating tailor-made conditions and technical specifications in the tender process in order to extend undue benefit to the said company. It is further alleged that unnecessary procurement of medical equipment and reagents at inflated rates was carried out, resulting in wrongful loss of approximately Rs.411 Crores to the State Government and corresponding wrongful gain to the private company, thereby constituting offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and corruption. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 64-year-old public servant who has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since 21.03.2025. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed on 25.04.2025 against the applicant and other co-accused persons, comprising approximately 18,000 pages and 71 proposed witnesses, yet charges have not been framed and the trial is not likely to commence in the near future. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are based merely on suspicion, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and call detail records, without there being 4 any direct evidence of conspiracy, criminal intent, personal gain or monetary benefit to the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the entire documentary evidence is already in custody of the prosecution agency, therefore there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses. It is also submitted that the main accused, namely Shashank Chopda, the proprietor of Mokshit Corporation, who is alleged to be the master mind of the entire conspiracy, as well as one co-accused namely Kamal Kant Patanwar have been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1978/2026 and 1979/2026, respectively, {SLP (Crl.) No. 3295/2026 and 5375/2026}, vide order dated 17.04.2026. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after rejection of the first bail application, on 15.09.2025, there is no substantial progress in the trial and the conclusion of the trial would take quite long time. After rejection of the second bail application by this Court in respect of two other co-accused namely Basant Kumar Kaushik and Deepak Kumar Bandhe, the said accused persons had approached the 5 Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to grant regular bail to them vide order dated 05.05.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 4542/2026 and 5381/2026, respectively. Hence, the same relief may also be extended to the applicant herein and he may also be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that sufÏcient material is available on record prima facie showing the active involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences. It is submitted that the applicant, while holding a responsible public ofÏce, played an important role in the reconstitution of the committee and preparation of indent for procurement of reagents in excessive quantities, thereby causing huge financial loss to the State Government. It is further submitted that the case relates to a serious economic offence involving misappropriation of public funds amounting to approximately Rs.411 Crores under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned State counsel also submits that documentary evidence and call detail records collected during investigation connect the applicant with the alleged conspiracy. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be 6 released on bail. However, the learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the co-accused Shashank Chopda and Kamal Kant Patanwar have been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 17.04.2026 and co- accused Basant Kumar Kaushik and Deepak Bandhe, have been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 05.05.2026, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and comprises voluminous documents with 71 proposed witnesses, and further considering that the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.03.2025, charges have not yet been framed and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, coupled with the fact that the entire evidence is documentary in nature and already in possession of the prosecution agency, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the 7 applicant is not warranted. This Court also takes note of the fact that the applicant is a 64 year old government servant and has no criminal antecedents, and further, there is no material on record to show that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. Further, the co-accused Shashank Chopda and Kamal Kant Patanwar have been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3295/2026 and 5375/2026 vide order dated 17.04.2026 and the co-accused Basant Kumar Kaushik and Deepak Bandhe have been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 4542/2026 and 5381/2026, respectively, vide order dated 05.05.2026, therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present bail application. 9. Let the Applicant – Dr. Anil Parsai, involved in Crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station – EOW/ACB, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, IPC and 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 7(C ), Prevention of Corruption Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 8 (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 sufÏcient 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 9 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 sufÏcient 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. 10. 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 Arpan